Jones v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. New York City Board of Education

189 A.D.2d 818, 592 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 288

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 818 (Jones v. New York City 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

Jones v. New York City Board of Education, 189 A.D.2d 818, 592 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the appellant New York City Board of Education dated July 21, 1989, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of various acts of misconduct and recommending that he be dismissed from his position as a tenured teacher, the appeal, by permission, is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated July 11, 1990, which annulled the determination insofar as it imposed the penalty of dismissal and remitted the matter for the imposition of a lesser penalty.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the determination of the appellant New York City Board of Education is reinstated in its entirety.

The petitioner did not seek review of the issue of whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of guilt as to the charges lodged against him, and alleged only that the penalty of dismissal was improper. The Supreme Court agreed and remitted the matter to the appellant New York City Board of Education for the imposition of a lesser penalty. We find that this penalty, while obviously severe, is not, under all the circumstances, so disproportionate to the offenses in question as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Significantly, the hearing panel found that the petitioner had failed to improve his performance despite many warnings and opportunities to do so and that he would not improve his skills if permitted to return to work (see, Mongitore v Regan, 133 AD2d 815; Matter of Carlan v Board of Educ., 128 AD2d 706). Balletta, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Santucci, 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 appellant New York City Board of Education dated July 21, 1989, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of various acts of misconduct and recommending that he be dismissed from his position as a tenured teacher, the appeal, by permission, is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated July 11, 1990, which annulled the determination insofar as it imposed the penalty of dismissal and remitted the matter for the imposition of a lesser penalty.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the determination of the appellant New York City Board of Education is reinstated in its entirety.

The petitioner did not seek review of the issue of whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of guilt as to the charges lodged against him, and alleged only that the penalty of dismissal was improper. The Supreme Court agreed and remitted the matter to the appellant New York City Board of Education for the imposition of a lesser penalty. We find that this penalty, while obviously severe, is not, under all the circumstances, so disproportionate to the offenses in question as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Significantly, the hearing panel found that the petitioner had failed to improve his performance despite many warnings and opportunities to do so and that he would not improve his skills if permitted to return to work (see, Mongitore v Regan, 133 AD2d 815; Matter of Carlan v Board of Educ., 128 AD2d 706). Balletta, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 818, 592 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-new-york-city-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack