Matter of Esteban v. Department of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Esteban v. Department of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y.

131 A.D.3d 880, 17 N.Y.S.3d 21

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15711 651904/13

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 880 (Matter of Esteban v. Department of Educ. of the City School Dist. 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 Esteban v. Department of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 131 A.D.3d 880, 17 N.Y.S.3d 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 20, 2013, granting the petition to vacate the portion of the arbitrator’s determination that imposed the penalty of termination of petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher, and remanding for imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner, a school teacher employed by respondent Department of Education (DOE), entered a courthouse in possession of a quantity of heroin, which led to his arrest and widespread negative publicity. DOE brought disciplinary charges against petitioner, which were submitted for determination to an arbitrator pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. The arbitrator sustained certain of the specifications and determined that the appropriate penalty for petitioner’s misconduct was dismissal. Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s penalty determination. Upon DOE’s appeal, we reverse.

An arbitration award determining an employment dispute in public education may not be vacated unless “it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003], quoting Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School *881 Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]). Here, it cannot be said that it was irrational, against public policy, or ultra vires for the arbitrator to determine that petitioner’s public possession of heroin warranted the penalty of dismissal. Nor is the termination of employment as a penalty for such misconduct “so disproportionate to the offense [ ] as to be shocking to the court’s sense of fairness” (Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner’s reliance on City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v Lorber (50 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2008]) is unavailing, as the order we affirmed in that case confirmed the arbitrator’s penalty determination.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, 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 (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 20, 2013, granting the petition to vacate the portion of the arbitrator’s determination that imposed the penalty of termination of petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher, and remanding for imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner, a school teacher employed by respondent Department of Education (DOE), entered a courthouse in possession of a quantity of heroin, which led to his arrest and widespread negative publicity. DOE brought disciplinary charges against petitioner, which were submitted for determination to an arbitrator pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. The arbitrator sustained certain of the specifications and determined that the appropriate penalty for petitioner’s misconduct was dismissal. Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s penalty determination. Upon DOE’s appeal, we reverse.

An arbitration award determining an employment dispute in public education may not be vacated unless “it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003], quoting Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School *881 Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]). Here, it cannot be said that it was irrational, against public policy, or ultra vires for the arbitrator to determine that petitioner’s public possession of heroin warranted the penalty of dismissal. Nor is the termination of employment as a penalty for such misconduct “so disproportionate to the offense [ ] as to be shocking to the court’s sense of fairness” (Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner’s reliance on City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v Lorber (50 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2008]) is unavailing, as the order we affirmed in that case confirmed the arbitrator’s penalty determination.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 880, 17 N.Y.S.3d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-esteban-v-department-of-educ-of-the-city-school-dist-of-the-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack