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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

141 A.D.3d 430, 33 N.Y.S.3d 897

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 2016·No. 1673 101065/13·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 14, 2015, denying the petition to annul respondent Department of Education’s determination, which upheld petitioner’s unsatisfactory annual performance review rating (U-rating) for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The evidence demonstrated that the U-rating was based on alleged incidents of misconduct that were substantiated after an investigation conducted by a neutral third party (see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]).

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

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 14, 2015, denying the petition to annul respondent Department of Education’s determination, which upheld petitioner’s unsatisfactory annual performance review rating (U-rating) for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The evidence demonstrated that the U-rating was based on alleged incidents of misconduct that were substantiated after an investigation conducted by a neutral third party (see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]).

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

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Matter of Hicks v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York, 141 A.D.3d 430, 33 N.Y.S.3d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

141 A.D.3d 430 (Matter of Hicks v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related