Krinsky v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krinsky v. New York City Department of Education

28 A.D.3d 353, 814 N.Y.S.2d 119

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

DecidedApril 20, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 353 (Krinsky 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

Krinsky v. New York City Department of Education, 28 A.D.3d 353, 814 N.Y.S.2d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J), entered on or about December 17, 2004, which denied petition seeking to vacate an arbitrator’s decision terminating his employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Applying the applicable standards in Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR 7511 (see Matter of Hegarty v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 AD3d 771 [2004]), we discern no basis for disturbing the determination. Contrary to petitioner’s suggestions, the hearing officer considered the entire record in reasonably concluding petitioner had engaged in conduct over a two-year period that constituted insubordination toward the administration at the school where he taught, and justified his unsatisfactory ratings. In light of the litany of specifications proven against him, the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience (id.).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J), entered on or about December 17, 2004, which denied petition seeking to vacate an arbitrator’s decision terminating his employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Applying the applicable standards in Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR 7511 (see Matter of Hegarty v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 AD3d 771 [2004]), we discern no basis for disturbing the determination. Contrary to petitioner’s suggestions, the hearing officer considered the entire record in reasonably concluding petitioner had engaged in conduct over a two-year period that constituted insubordination toward the administration at the school where he taught, and justified his unsatisfactory ratings. In light of the litany of specifications proven against him, the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience (id.).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 353, 814 N.Y.S.2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krinsky-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack