Herod v. Board of Education of Hempstead Public School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herod v. Board of Education of Hempstead Public School District

90 A.D.2d 841, 456 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19100

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 841 (Herod v. Board of Education of Hempstead Public 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

Herod v. Board of Education of Hempstead Public School District, 90 A.D.2d 841, 456 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Education of the Hempstead Public School District, dated March 21, 1981, which, after a hearing conducted pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law, found petitioner guilty of the charge of “gross insubordination” and imposed a penalty of a 30-day suspension without pay and a $100 fine. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondent is directed to restore petitioner to her position, with full pay for the period of suspension less the amount of compensation which she may have earned in any other employment or occupation and any unemployment insurance benefits she may have received. Gross insubordination denotes conduct which is intentional and contumacious (see Matter of Griffin v Thompson, 202 NY 104, 113). To sustain the charge there must be a showing of willful disobedience of an order, directive, rule, regulation, policy, or law (see Matter of Reisig v Kirby, 62 Misc 2d 632, affd 31 AD2d 1008). No such showing was made. The evidence did not relate to the charge. Thus, the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180). O’Connor, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Education of the Hempstead Public School District, dated March 21, 1981, which, after a hearing conducted pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law, found petitioner guilty of the charge of “gross insubordination” and imposed a penalty of a 30-day suspension without pay and a $100 fine. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondent is directed to restore petitioner to her position, with full pay for the period of suspension less the amount of compensation which she may have earned in any other employment or occupation and any unemployment insurance benefits she may have received. Gross insubordination denotes conduct which is intentional and contumacious (see Matter of Griffin v Thompson, 202 NY 104, 113). To sustain the charge there must be a showing of willful disobedience of an order, directive, rule, regulation, policy, or law (see Matter of Reisig v Kirby, 62 Misc 2d 632, affd 31 AD2d 1008). No such showing was made. The evidence did not relate to the charge. Thus, the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180). O’Connor, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 841, 456 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herod-v-board-of-education-of-hempstead-public-school-district-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack