Goldberg v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Board of Education

151 A.D.2d 756, 542 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156

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

DecidedJune 26, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 756 (Goldberg 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

Goldberg v. Board of Education, 151 A.D.2d 756, 542 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Examiners of the City of New York, dated September 2, 1987, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal of a failing score on an examination for a license as assistant administrative director with the New York State Department of Education, the petitioner appeals from a [757]*757judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 1,1988, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The examination taken by the petitioner consists of both a written portion and an oral interview. In order to receive a passing grade an applicant is required to receive a minimum score of 50% on each portion of the examination. The petitioner received a grade of 40.1% on the written portion of the examination and 33% on the interview. We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner has failed to establish that his receipt of a failing grade on the oral portion of his examination was the result of arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of the Board of Examiners (see, Matter of Oback v Nadel, 57 NY2d 620; Matter of Acosta v Lang, 13 NY2d 1079; Matter of Sloat v Board of Examiners, 274 NY 367; see also, Shelton v Costelloe, 129 AD2d 631). Thus, this proceeding was properly dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, 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 to review a determination of the Board of Examiners of the City of New York, dated September 2, 1987, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal of a failing score on an examination for a license as assistant administrative director with the New York State Department of Education, the petitioner appeals from a [757]*757judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 1,1988, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The examination taken by the petitioner consists of both a written portion and an oral interview. In order to receive a passing grade an applicant is required to receive a minimum score of 50% on each portion of the examination. The petitioner received a grade of 40.1% on the written portion of the examination and 33% on the interview. We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner has failed to establish that his receipt of a failing grade on the oral portion of his examination was the result of arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of the Board of Examiners (see, Matter of Oback v Nadel, 57 NY2d 620; Matter of Acosta v Lang, 13 NY2d 1079; Matter of Sloat v Board of Examiners, 274 NY 367; see also, Shelton v Costelloe, 129 AD2d 631). Thus, this proceeding was properly dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 756, 542 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack