James v. Klein

43 A.D.3d 764, 842 N.Y.S.2d 23

This text of 43 A.D.3d 764 (James v. Klein) 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
James v. Klein, 43 A.D.3d 764, 842 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Lewis Bart Stone, J.], entered February 10, 2006), to the extent it challenges respondent Chancellor’s determination, dated June 1, 2005, which sub silentio sustained petitioner’s termination as a probationary assistant principal, unanimously dismissed, without costs. To the extent the petition. challenges the Chancellor’s sustaining of petitioner’s “unsatisfactory” rating for the period ending June 2004, the matter is remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent herewith, without costs.

Initially, we note that this proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g). The appropriate standard of review to be applied here was whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. Matter of Von Gizycki v Levy, 3 AD3d 572 [2004]), and not whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7803 [4]). Nevertheless, we will determine the issues presented, [765]*765to the extent the record before this Court allows (see Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N.Y., 24 NY2d 174 [1969]).

Petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months of the effective termination of her probationary employment. Her challenge to the discontinuance of her probationary status is thus time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Friedland v New York City Dept. of Educ., 39 AD3d 395 [2007]).

Respondents concede that the challenge to the unsatisfactory rating is not time-barred. We decline to consider the merits of that portion of the petition, since respondents have not had the opportunity to answer (CPLR 7804 [f]), and a complete record is not before the court. Concur—Tom, J.R, Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Related

125 Bar Corp. v. State Liquor Authority
247 N.E.2d 157 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
Von Gizycki v. Levy
3 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Friedland v. New York City Department of Education
39 A.D.3d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 764, 842 N.Y.S.2d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-klein-nyappdiv-2007.