Dionisio v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dionisio v. Board of Education

128 A.D.2d 524, 512 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44215

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 524 (Dionisio v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dionisio v. Board of Education, 128 A.D.2d 524, 512 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District to reinstate the petitioner to a teaching position, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated June 3, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District.

The Supreme Court, Putnam County, properly dismissed the proceeding inasmuch as the position resulting from another teacher taking an unpaid leave of absence was not a "vacancy” within the meaning of Education Law § 2510 (3) to which the petitioner was entitled to be appointed (see, Matter of Brewer v Board of Educ., 51 NY2d 855; cf., Matter of Dionisio v Board of Educ., 96 AD2d 1041, affd 63 NY2d 862). In the instant case as distinguished from Matter of Dionisio v Board of Educ. (supra), there is no indication that the other teacher suffers from any serious illness, and she has unequivocally expressed her intention of returning to teach in the Mahopac Central School District. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District to reinstate the petitioner to a teaching position, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated June 3, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District.

The Supreme Court, Putnam County, properly dismissed the proceeding inasmuch as the position resulting from another teacher taking an unpaid leave of absence was not a "vacancy” within the meaning of Education Law § 2510 (3) to which the petitioner was entitled to be appointed (see, Matter of Brewer v Board of Educ., 51 NY2d 855; cf., Matter of Dionisio v Board of Educ., 96 AD2d 1041, affd 63 NY2d 862). In the instant case as distinguished from Matter of Dionisio v Board of Educ. (supra), there is no indication that the other teacher suffers from any serious illness, and she has unequivocally expressed her intention of returning to teach in the Mahopac Central School District. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 524, 512 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dionisio-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack