Home/New York Court of Appeals/Kaufman v. Anker

Kaufman v. Anker

366 N.E.2d 77, 42 N.Y.2d 835, 397 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2143
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 2, 1977·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We note that respondents do not here assert "an unfettered right to terminate the employment of a teacher during his probationary period, unless the teacher establishes that the [chancellor] terminated for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory proscription” (James v Board of Rduc., 37 NY2d 891, 892). In this circumstance the proper standard for judicial review of the action of the Chancellor of Schools of the New York City School District in terminating appellant’s appointment as a probationary teacher, because she had no right to continued appointment, is whether his action was arbitrary and capricious rather than whether it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Contrast subd 3 with subd 4 of CPLR 7803; see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, pars 7803.04, 7803.07, 7803.11-7803.13.)

We note that the by-laws of the board of education provide for a hearing at which the probationary teacher is entitled to [837]*837appear and to present evidence. This hearing procedure is advisory rather than determinative; the proof is heard by the hearing committee rather than by the chancellor; and appellant concedes that the chancellor does not have to follow the recommendations of the hearing committee. It is the chancellor, not the hearing committee, who makes the determination. In these circumstances the hearing provided for by the bylaws is not a hearing within the contemplation of CPLR 7803 (subd 4); it therefore suffices if the chancellor’s decision is not arbitrary and capricious.

In the present case, inasmuch as appellant’s principal recommended that her services be discontinued and the district superintendent concurred in that recommendation, it cannot be said that the chancellor’s action was arbitrary and capricious.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Kaufman v. Anker, 366 N.E.2d 77, 42 N.Y.2d 835, 397 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2143 (N.Y. 1977).

366 N.E.2d 77 (Kaufman v. Anker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barrett Japaning, Inc. v. Bialobroda
2021 NY Slip Op 00248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Willoughby Operating Co., LLC v. New York City Economic Dev. Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 07734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Kostic v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
2020 NY Slip Op 06856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Brickhouse v. City of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 06699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Halcomb v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.
2020 NY Slip Op 06212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Storman v. New York City Department of Education
95 A.D.3d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Von Gizycki v. Levy
3 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Climent v. Board of Education of Community School District No. 22
288 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Bigler v. Cornell University
266 A.D.2d 92 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Frasier v. Board of Education
525 N.E.2d 725 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Dillard v. Alvarado
118 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Orshan v. Anker
550 F. Supp. 538 (E.D. New York, 1982)
Golomb v. Board of Education of City School District
106 Misc. 2d 264 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)