Matter of Almonte v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Almonte v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 707

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2015

Docket15885 103008/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 505 (Matter of Almonte v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.) 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

Matter of Almonte v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) cross motion to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent’s determination to terminate petitioner’s probationary employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly determined that DOE did not violate the law or act in bad faith in terminating petitioner, a probationary teacher (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649 [1986]; see also Matter of Medina v Sielaff, 182 AD2d 424, 427 [1st Dept 1992]). Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to support her contention that her dismissal was due to bad faith or racial animus (see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 *506 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2006]). The evidence shows that petitioner’s employment was terminated based on two classroom observations. Under these circumstances, the IAS court’s annulment of petitioner’s “U-rating,” and DOE’s failure to provide a mentor, are insufficient to show bad faith (see Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 89 AD3d 486, 487-488 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) cross motion to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent’s determination to terminate petitioner’s probationary employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court correctly determined that DOE did not violate the law or act in bad faith in terminating petitioner, a probationary teacher (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649 [1986]; see also Matter of Medina v Sielaff, 182 AD2d 424, 427 [1st Dept 1992]). Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to support her contention that her dismissal was due to bad faith or racial animus (see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 *506 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2006]). The evidence shows that petitioner’s employment was terminated based on two classroom observations. Under these circumstances, the IAS court’s annulment of petitioner’s “U-rating,” and DOE’s failure to provide a mentor, are insufficient to show bad faith (see Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 89 AD3d 486, 487-488 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-almonte-v-department-of-educ-of-the-city-of-ny-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack