Matter of Chang v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Chang v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York

137 A.D.3d 597, 26 N.Y.S.3d 697

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2016·No. 371 100361/14·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 8, 2014, which denied the petition challenging respondents’ determination, dated January 14, 2014, terminating petitioner’s contract as a bilingual speech pathologist, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that the agreement with petitioner afforded respondents the unconditional right to terminate the contract without cause and that such contract termination clauses are enforceable (see Red Apple Child Dev. Ctr. v Community School Dists. Two, 303 AD2d 156, 157-158 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 503 [2003]; Ying-Qi Yang v Shew-Foo Chin, 42 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 812 [2007]). Moreover, respondents’ determination was rational. The agency did not have to accept petitioner’s claim that the complaint was an exaggeration of the actual events.

Petitioner was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing because she presented no evidence to refute the statements of respondent’s director of employee relations that the code placed on petitioner’s file was for internal use only, and therefore she failed to show a likelihood of dissemination of the stigmatizing material (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 764-765 [1999]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 8, 2014, which denied the petition challenging respondents’ determination, dated January 14, 2014, terminating petitioner’s contract as a bilingual speech pathologist, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that the agreement with petitioner afforded respondents the unconditional right to terminate the contract without cause and that such contract termination clauses are enforceable (see Red Apple Child Dev. Ctr. v Community School Dists. Two, 303 AD2d 156, 157-158 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 503 [2003]; Ying-Qi Yang v Shew-Foo Chin, 42 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 812 [2007]). Moreover, respondents’ determination was rational. The agency did not have to accept petitioner’s claim that the complaint was an exaggeration of the actual events.

Petitioner was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing because she presented no evidence to refute the statements of respondent’s director of employee relations that the code placed on petitioner’s file was for internal use only, and therefore she failed to show a likelihood of dissemination of the stigmatizing material (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 764-765 [1999]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Matter of Chang v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 597, 26 N.Y.S.3d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

137 A.D.3d 597 (Matter of Chang v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related