Ebercohn-Mauro v. Board of Education of the City School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ebercohn-Mauro v. Board of Education of the City School District

5 A.D.3d 595, 774 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2736

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 595 (Ebercohn-Mauro v. Board of Education of the City 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

Ebercohn-Mauro v. Board of Education of the City School District, 5 A.D.3d 595, 774 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer’s determination that she was guilty of three specifications relating to unsatisfactory teaching performance was irrational or the result of bias (see CPLR 7511; Matter of Kornit, 49 NY2d 842 [1980]). Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the penalty of dismissal was neither against a strong public policy nor irrational (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321 [1999]; Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, Am. Fedn. of Teachers, AFL-CIO, 304 AD2d 826, lv denied 100 NY2d 511 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, 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 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer’s determination that she was guilty of three specifications relating to unsatisfactory teaching performance was irrational or the result of bias (see CPLR 7511; Matter of Kornit, 49 NY2d 842 [1980]). Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the penalty of dismissal was neither against a strong public policy nor irrational (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321 [1999]; Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, Am. Fedn. of Teachers, AFL-CIO, 304 AD2d 826, lv denied 100 NY2d 511 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 595, 774 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ebercohn-mauro-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-school-district-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack