Matter of Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York v. Ostrin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York v. Ostrin

120 A.D.3d 1105, 992 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2014 NY Slip Op 06249, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6205

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

Docket12630 400108/11

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1105 (Matter of Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York v. Ostrin) 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 Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York v. Ostrin, 120 A.D.3d 1105, 992 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2014 NY Slip Op 06249, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 16, 2012, denying the petition, which sought to modify the penalty imposed in an arbitration award, dated December 27, 2010, granting respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition and confirm the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Hearing Officer’s determination to suspend respondent teacher for one half year without pay, rather than terminate him, was rational and supported by the evidence (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 75 AD3d 445, 452-453 [1st Dept 2010], affd 17 NY3d 917 [2011]). There is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings that respondent did not commit sexual misconduct on the date in question, and that he did not engage in a pattern of misconduct warranting the penalty of dismissal. The Hearing Officer made clear that the case turned entirely on the credibility of the witnesses, and such determinations “are largely unreviewable” (Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]; see also McGraham, 75 AD3d at 452). Further, the imposed penalty does not violate public policy (see McGraham, 75 AD3d at 450).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 16, 2012, denying the petition, which sought to modify the penalty imposed in an arbitration award, dated December 27, 2010, granting respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition and confirm the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Hearing Officer’s determination to suspend respondent teacher for one half year without pay, rather than terminate him, was rational and supported by the evidence (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 75 AD3d 445, 452-453 [1st Dept 2010], affd 17 NY3d 917 [2011]). There is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings that respondent did not commit sexual misconduct on the date in question, and that he did not engage in a pattern of misconduct warranting the penalty of dismissal. The Hearing Officer made clear that the case turned entirely on the credibility of the witnesses, and such determinations “are largely unreviewable” (Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]; see also McGraham, 75 AD3d at 452). Further, the imposed penalty does not violate public policy (see McGraham, 75 AD3d at 450).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1105, 992 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2014 NY Slip Op 06249, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-board-of-educ-of-the-city-school-dist-of-the-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack