Johnson v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. New York City Department of Education

37 A.D.3d 347, 830 N.Y.S.2d 655

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 347 (Johnson v. New York City Department 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

Johnson v. New York City Department of Education, 37 A.D.3d 347, 830 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered May 24, 2005, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding on respondent’s motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner never made proper service upon respondent, and in any event, the petition was untimely, having been brought more than two years after petitioner was notified of her termination (see Matter of Lipton v New York City Bd. of Educ., 284 AD2d 140 [2001]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that petitioner, a probationary employee, failed to establish that her termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible reason or in violation of law (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered May 24, 2005, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding on respondent’s motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner never made proper service upon respondent, and in any event, the petition was untimely, having been brought more than two years after petitioner was notified of her termination (see Matter of Lipton v New York City Bd. of Educ., 284 AD2d 140 [2001]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that petitioner, a probationary employee, failed to establish that her termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible reason or in violation of law (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 347, 830 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack