Matter of Guttman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Guttman v. City of New York

134 A.D.3d 547, 20 N.Y.S.3d 886

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2015

Docket16429 103514/12

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 547 (Matter of Guttman 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 Guttman v. City of New York, 134 A.D.3d 547, 20 N.Y.S.3d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered December 11, 2013, denying the petition seeking to, among other things, annul respondents’ determination, dated May 7, 2012, which gave petitioner, a probationary teacher, an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination is supported by the record, and petitioner failed to show that it was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith (see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, 606 [1st Dept 2014]). The record shows that the unsatisfactory rating was based on numerous observations by the school principal and that petitioner’s performance failed to improve even though she was provided with support from a literacy coach, a math coach, and other teachers (see id.). The audiotapes of meetings between the principal and petitioner do not demonstrate antiunion bias by the principal. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, 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 December 11, 2013, denying the petition seeking to, among other things, annul respondents’ determination, dated May 7, 2012, which gave petitioner, a probationary teacher, an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination is supported by the record, and petitioner failed to show that it was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith (see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, 606 [1st Dept 2014]). The record shows that the unsatisfactory rating was based on numerous observations by the school principal and that petitioner’s performance failed to improve even though she was provided with support from a literacy coach, a math coach, and other teachers (see id.). The audiotapes of meetings between the principal and petitioner do not demonstrate antiunion bias by the principal. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 547, 20 N.Y.S.3d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-guttman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.