Kudler v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kudler v. Board of Education

236 A.D.2d 403, 654 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 969

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 403 (Kudler v. 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

Kudler v. Board of Education, 236 A.D.2d 403, 654 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Board of Education of the City of New York which terminated the petitioner’s teaching license, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 30,1995, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s argument, the decision by the respondent to terminate the petitioner’s teaching license was not arbitrary and capricious, since the petitioner admittedly failed to meet the maximum teaching requirements within five years of the issuance of his license under the so-called 1986 "closed exam” (see, Matter of Ahrens v Board ofEduc., 57 AD2d 925; Education Law former § 2569-f).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, 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, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Board of Education of the City of New York which terminated the petitioner’s teaching license, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 30,1995, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s argument, the decision by the respondent to terminate the petitioner’s teaching license was not arbitrary and capricious, since the petitioner admittedly failed to meet the maximum teaching requirements within five years of the issuance of his license under the so-called 1986 "closed exam” (see, Matter of Ahrens v Board ofEduc., 57 AD2d 925; Education Law former § 2569-f).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 403, 654 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kudler-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack