Dionisio v. Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dionisio v. Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District

147 A.D.2d 641, 538 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2066

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 641 (Dionisio v. Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District) 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 of the Mahopac Central School District, 147 A.D.2d 641, 538 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

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, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), entered April 21, 1987, as dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District.

A school district is not required to rearrange academic schedules in order to recall an excessed teacher on a preferred eligible list (see, Matter of Chauvel v Nyquist, 43 NY2d 48; Matter of Ward v Nyquist, 43 NY2d 57). Since the respondent Board of Education had the authority to reassign the respondent remedial reading teacher to an elementary school position which was within her tenure area (Sweet Home Cent. School Dist. v Sweet Home Educ. Assn., 90 AD2d 683, affd 58 NY2d 912), it was not required to refrain from doing so to accommodate the petitioner’s reinstatement to an elementary school position. The petitioner was not legally qualified to teach in the vacant remedial reading position. Accordingly, her rights under Education Law § 2510 (3) were not violated. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), entered April 21, 1987, as dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent Board of Education of the Mahopac Central School District.

A school district is not required to rearrange academic schedules in order to recall an excessed teacher on a preferred eligible list (see, Matter of Chauvel v Nyquist, 43 NY2d 48; Matter of Ward v Nyquist, 43 NY2d 57). Since the respondent Board of Education had the authority to reassign the respondent remedial reading teacher to an elementary school position which was within her tenure area (Sweet Home Cent. School Dist. v Sweet Home Educ. Assn., 90 AD2d 683, affd 58 NY2d 912), it was not required to refrain from doing so to accommodate the petitioner’s reinstatement to an elementary school position. The petitioner was not legally qualified to teach in the vacant remedial reading position. Accordingly, her rights under Education Law § 2510 (3) were not violated. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 641, 538 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dionisio-v-board-of-education-of-the-mahopac-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack