Matter of Demas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Demas v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 3267, 149 A.D.3d 663, 50 N.Y.S.3d 877

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

DecidedApril 27, 2017

Docket3851 100346/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3267 (Matter of Demas v. City of New York) 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 Demas v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 3267, 149 A.D.3d 663, 50 N.Y.S.3d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 27, 2015, which denied the petition seeking to annul the unsatisfactory rating (U-Rating) for the 2012-2013 school year given to petitioner by respondents, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner’s performance was unsatisfactory has a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Andersen v Klein, 50 AD3d 296, 297 [1st Dept 2008]). While under his coaching and supervision, petitioner’s basketball players engaged in a pattern of profane and uncontrollable conduct, on and off the court, which included yelling profanities, making offensive hand gestures and aggressively interacting with the crowd during basketball games, such that, on at *664 least one occasion, security agents had to escort the opposing team from the premises.

To the extent argued, the hearing officer was entitled to rely on hearsay (see Matter of Paul v New York City Dept. of Educ., 146 AD3d 705 [1st Dept 2017]).

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

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 27, 2015, which denied the petition seeking to annul the unsatisfactory rating (U-Rating) for the 2012-2013 school year given to petitioner by respondents, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner’s performance was unsatisfactory has a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Andersen v Klein, 50 AD3d 296, 297 [1st Dept 2008]). While under his coaching and supervision, petitioner’s basketball players engaged in a pattern of profane and uncontrollable conduct, on and off the court, which included yelling profanities, making offensive hand gestures and aggressively interacting with the crowd during basketball games, such that, on at *664 least one occasion, security agents had to escort the opposing team from the premises.

To the extent argued, the hearing officer was entitled to rely on hearsay (see Matter of Paul v New York City Dept. of Educ., 146 AD3d 705 [1st Dept 2017]).

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

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3267, 149 A.D.3d 663, 50 N.Y.S.3d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-demas-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack