Matter of Haubenstock v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Haubenstock v. City of New York

130 A.D.3d 435, 14 N.Y.S.3d 331

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2015

Docket15592 651892/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 435 (Matter of Haubenstock 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 Haubenstock v. City of New York, 130 A.D.3d 435, 14 N.Y.S.3d 331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered June 18, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following a hearing, granted the petition to vacate an arbitration award to the extent of vacating the penalty and remanding for determination of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment confirming the award.

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fair *436 ness (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner committed four separate acts of corporal punishment, in violation of Chancellor’s Regulation A-420, which prohibits corporal punishment, defined as “any act of physical force upon a pupil for the purpose of punishing that pupil.” Three of these acts occurred after petitioner had been formally warned that any recurrence of his misconduct would result in further disciplinary action and he had been referred to a mandatory training workshop on “appropriate behavior intervention strategies.” We find petitioner’s misconduct is highlighted by the fact that these pupils were non-verbal autistic children, incapable of protecting themselves or reporting what happened to them. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Richter, ManzanetDaniels, Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered June 18, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following a hearing, granted the petition to vacate an arbitration award to the extent of vacating the penalty and remanding for determination of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment confirming the award.

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fair *436 ness (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner committed four separate acts of corporal punishment, in violation of Chancellor’s Regulation A-420, which prohibits corporal punishment, defined as “any act of physical force upon a pupil for the purpose of punishing that pupil.” Three of these acts occurred after petitioner had been formally warned that any recurrence of his misconduct would result in further disciplinary action and he had been referred to a mandatory training workshop on “appropriate behavior intervention strategies.” We find petitioner’s misconduct is highlighted by the fact that these pupils were non-verbal autistic children, incapable of protecting themselves or reporting what happened to them. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Richter, ManzanetDaniels, Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 435, 14 N.Y.S.3d 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-haubenstock-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack