Kelsch v. Walsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelsch v. Walsh

180 A.D.2d 683

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 683 (Kelsch v. Walsh) 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

Kelsch v. Walsh, 180 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Islip Union Free School District, dated July 24, 1989, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had engaged in conduct unbecoming of a teacher and formally reprimanded him.

[684]*684Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination under review is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176).

We have considered the other contentions raised by the petitioner, including his claim that he was not afforded due process of law because the chairperson of the hearing panel and another member of the panel were biased against him, and find them to be lacking in merit (see, e.g., Matter of Flores v New York State Educ. Dept., 146 AD2d 881; cf., Matter of Conley v Ambach, 61 NY2d 685; Matter of City School Dist. [Oswego Classroom Teachers Assn.], 100 AD2d 13, 18-19, n 2, amended 101 AD2d 1027). Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Islip Union Free School District, dated July 24, 1989, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had engaged in conduct unbecoming of a teacher and formally reprimanded him.

[684]*684Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination under review is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176).

We have considered the other contentions raised by the petitioner, including his claim that he was not afforded due process of law because the chairperson of the hearing panel and another member of the panel were biased against him, and find them to be lacking in merit (see, e.g., Matter of Flores v New York State Educ. Dept., 146 AD2d 881; cf., Matter of Conley v Ambach, 61 NY2d 685; Matter of City School Dist. [Oswego Classroom Teachers Assn.], 100 AD2d 13, 18-19, n 2, amended 101 AD2d 1027). Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelsch-v-walsh-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack