Lamb v. Mills

296 A.D.2d 697, 745 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 11, 2002·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Peters, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which permanently revoked petitioner’s teaching certification.

In October 1995, petitioner, a teacher in the Hamilton Central School District, was suspended from his position for, inter alia, having inappropriate contact with his students. In November 1995, a Madison County grand jury returned a 48-count indictment containing charges stemming from, inter alia, the same conduct; he was ultimately acquitted of all these charges.

On April 11, 1997, pursuant to Education Law § 305 (7) and 8 NYCRR part 83, respondent served petitioner with a notice of substantial question as to moral character grounded upon these allegations. Pursuant to 8 NYCRR 83.4, a hearing was [698] held before a three-member panel to determine whether petitioner’s teaching certificate should be revoked. The Hearing Panel found, with one member dissenting, that petitioner was guilty of, inter alia, excessive physical touching with his students. Based upon its findings, the majority recommended that petitioner’s teaching certification be suspended; the dissenter argued for revocation. Upon petitioner’s appeal, respondent rejected the Hearing Panel’s conclusion that petitioner’s conduct was not sexually motivated and found that he engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct warranting the revocation of his certification.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding by the filing and service of both a notice of petition and petition, yet failed to include a return date in the notice. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for a failure to acquire personal jurisdiction. While petitioner conceded that the notice of petition did not contain a return date, he stated that counsel had advised the Attorney General of the return date at least 20 days prior thereto. Supreme Court considered these factors and concluded that, due to the absence of prejudice, petitioner’s failure to have included a return date in compliance with CPLR 403

Footnotes

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

Lamb v. Mills, 296 A.D.2d 697, 745 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

296 A.D.2d 697 (Lamb v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kennedy v. New York State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities
2017 NY Slip Op 7082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Oneida Pub. Lib. Dist. v. Town Bd. of The Town of Verona
2017 NY Slip Op 5659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Kungel
72 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Properties v. Dimitriadis
56 A.D.2d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
State Division of Human Rights v. HSBC Bank U.S.A.
8 Misc. 3d 521 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Siddiqui v. Department of Social Services
7 A.D.3d 941 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Tonawanda Assessor
309 A.D.2d 1251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)