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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

126 A.D.3d 419, 5 N.Y.S.3d 53

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2015

Docket14393 401945/12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 419 (Matter of Loren 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 Loren v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 126 A.D.3d 419, 5 N.Y.S.3d 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered January 24, 2013, granting respondents’ cross motion to deny the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated July 31, 2012, which terminated petitioner from the New York City Teaching Fellows training program, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner had only recently been accepted into the training program and was in the midst of a seven-week pre-service training period. Thus, he had no more rights than those of probationary employees, who “may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [their] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law” (Matter of Brown v City of New York, 280 AD2d 368, 370 [1st Dept 2001]).

Here, the record demonstrates that petitioner did not have a cause of action as the evidence submitted with the petition and cross motion established that during the pre-service training period, several complaints had been made about petitioner’s performance, resulting in the issuance of a performance concern letter. The complaints indicated that petitioner had been admonished multiple times for using his cell phone in the classroom and improperly leaving the classroom when students were present. He was also directed by a supervisor to refrain from contacting another teacher who had expressed concerns about how he had previously spoken to her. Under these circumstances, where there is evidence of multiple instances of unsatisfactory performance during a short seven-week period, the discharge was made in good faith (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]).

Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered January 24, 2013, granting respondents’ cross motion to deny the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated July 31, 2012, which terminated petitioner from the New York City Teaching Fellows training program, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner had only recently been accepted into the training program and was in the midst of a seven-week pre-service training period. Thus, he had no more rights than those of probationary employees, who “may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [their] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law” (Matter of Brown v City of New York, 280 AD2d 368, 370 [1st Dept 2001]).

Here, the record demonstrates that petitioner did not have a cause of action as the evidence submitted with the petition and cross motion established that during the pre-service training period, several complaints had been made about petitioner’s performance, resulting in the issuance of a performance concern letter. The complaints indicated that petitioner had been admonished multiple times for using his cell phone in the classroom and improperly leaving the classroom when students were present. He was also directed by a supervisor to refrain from contacting another teacher who had expressed concerns about how he had previously spoken to her. Under these circumstances, where there is evidence of multiple instances of unsatisfactory performance during a short seven-week period, the discharge was made in good faith (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]).

Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 419, 5 N.Y.S.3d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-loren-v-new-york-city-dept-of-educ-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack