Matter of Kriloff v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Kriloff v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

2017 NY Slip Op 6713, 153 A.D.3d 1201, 60 N.Y.S.3d 676

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2017

Docket4523 101344/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6713 (Matter of Kriloff v. New York City Dept. of Educ.) 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 Kriloff v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2017 NY Slip Op 6713, 153 A.D.3d 1201, 60 N.Y.S.3d 676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 17, 2016, annulling respondent’s determination, dated March 25, 2015, which discontinued petitioner’s probationary employment as a teacher, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Petitioner failed to show that respondent’s discontinuation of her probationary employment was done in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of the law (see Matter of Mendez v New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 NY3d 993 [2016]). Petitioner contends that respondent erred in concluding that her actions — taking hold of the arm of a nonverbal, special-needs student as he lay on the floor writhing and physically dragging him approximately eight feet across the hall to the classroom he had exited without permission— constituted prohibited corporal punishment. This contention is insufficient to establish that respondent reached its conclusion in bad faith or for an impermissible reason (see id.; Matter of Rieser v New York City Dept. of Educ., 133 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Oing and Singh, 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 (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 17, 2016, annulling respondent’s determination, dated March 25, 2015, which discontinued petitioner’s probationary employment as a teacher, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Petitioner failed to show that respondent’s discontinuation of her probationary employment was done in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of the law (see Matter of Mendez v New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 NY3d 993 [2016]). Petitioner contends that respondent erred in concluding that her actions — taking hold of the arm of a nonverbal, special-needs student as he lay on the floor writhing and physically dragging him approximately eight feet across the hall to the classroom he had exited without permission— constituted prohibited corporal punishment. This contention is insufficient to establish that respondent reached its conclusion in bad faith or for an impermissible reason (see id.; Matter of Rieser v New York City Dept. of Educ., 133 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Oing and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6713, 153 A.D.3d 1201, 60 N.Y.S.3d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kriloff-v-new-york-city-dept-of-educ-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack