Druyan v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Druyan v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

128 A.D.3d 617, 10 N.Y.S.3d 210

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

DecidedMay 28, 2015

Docket15258 400105/13

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.3d 617 (Druyan v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.) 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

Druyan v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 128 A.D.3d 617, 10 N.Y.S.3d 210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 22, 2014, which denied the amended petition *618 seeking to annul respondents’ determination, dated on or about June 15, 2011, terminating petitioner from her position as a probationary teacher, and granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the amended petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s request, made under the interest of justice standard set forth in CPLR 306-b, for an extension of time to serve the petition and amended petition personally upon the respondents. Petitioner did not seek an extension of time until after the expiration of the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]), and she failed to provide an excuse for the delay or for failing to timely serve respondents (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]). Her pro se status is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Ruine v Hines, 57 AD3d 369, 370 [1st Dept 2008]). In addition, the petition lacks a meritorious claim (see Leader, 97 NY2d at 105; Matter of Centeno v City of New York, 115 AD3d 537, 537-538 [1st Dept 2014]). Petitioner failed to show that the termination of her probationary employment was made in bad faith or in violation of the law (see Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 18 NY3d 457, 471 [2012]). There is evidence in the record showing that petitioner received two unsatisfactory ratings following classroom observations in April and May 2011, despite mentoring and coaching throughout the school year and despite a post-observation conference in April 2011 advising her of her teaching deficiencies (see Matter of Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Moskowitz, J.P., DeGrasse,

Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 22, 2014, which denied the amended petition *618 seeking to annul respondents’ determination, dated on or about June 15, 2011, terminating petitioner from her position as a probationary teacher, and granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the amended petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s request, made under the interest of justice standard set forth in CPLR 306-b, for an extension of time to serve the petition and amended petition personally upon the respondents. Petitioner did not seek an extension of time until after the expiration of the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]), and she failed to provide an excuse for the delay or for failing to timely serve respondents (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]). Her pro se status is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Ruine v Hines, 57 AD3d 369, 370 [1st Dept 2008]). In addition, the petition lacks a meritorious claim (see Leader, 97 NY2d at 105; Matter of Centeno v City of New York, 115 AD3d 537, 537-538 [1st Dept 2014]). Petitioner failed to show that the termination of her probationary employment was made in bad faith or in violation of the law (see Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 18 NY3d 457, 471 [2012]). There is evidence in the record showing that petitioner received two unsatisfactory ratings following classroom observations in April and May 2011, despite mentoring and coaching throughout the school year and despite a post-observation conference in April 2011 advising her of her teaching deficiencies (see Matter of Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Moskowitz, J.P., DeGrasse,

Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 617, 10 N.Y.S.3d 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/druyan-v-board-of-educ-of-the-city-sch-dist-of-the-city-of-ny-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack