In re the Arbitration between Mazur & Genesee Valley BOCES

34 A.D.3d 1240, 825 N.Y.S.2d 329
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 17, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1240 (In re the Arbitration between Mazur & Genesee Valley BOCES) 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
In re the Arbitration between Mazur & Genesee Valley BOCES, 34 A.D.3d 1240, 825 N.Y.S.2d 329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered July 26, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order, inter alia, vacated an arbitration award and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitrator on the issue of penalty.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is denied, the cross motion is granted and the arbitration award is confirmed.

Memorandum: Petitioner, a tenured administrator employed by respondent, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5) and CPLR 7511 challenging his termination following a disciplinary hearing and seeking reinstatement to his former position. Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to the extent of vacating the arbitration award and remitting the matter for a new hearing on the issue of penalty and in denying the cross motion to confirm the award. Substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s determination that petitioner engaged in conduct that was unbecoming an administrator and demonstrated incompetence (see generally Matter of Hegarty v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 AD3d 771, 772 [2004]; Matter of Carroll [Pirkle], 296 AD2d 755, 756 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 764 [2002]). Further, “[i]n light of the litany of specifications proven against him, the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience” (Krinsky v New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 AD3d 353, 353 [2006]; see Matter of Morey v Somers Cent. School Dist., 24 AD3d 558, 559 [2005]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Williams v. City of New York
142 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
HAMILTON, WILLIAM E. v. ALLEY, MARY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Hamilton v. Alley
137 A.D.3d 1564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 1240, 825 N.Y.S.2d 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-mazur-genesee-valley-boces-nyappdiv-2006.