Matter of Meyers v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Meyers v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

2017 NY Slip Op 3891, 150 A.D.3d 501, 55 N.Y.S.3d 16

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

DecidedMay 16, 2017

Docket4006 100387/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3891 (Matter of Meyers v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.) 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 Meyers v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 3891, 150 A.D.3d 501, 55 N.Y.S.3d 16 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 6, 2016, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education, dated November 5, 2014, which sustained petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2013-2014 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner’s performance as a teacher of English as a second language during the 2013-2014 school year was unsatisfactory is not arbitrary and capricious (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 Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2014]). The determination is rationally supported by the principal’s detailed descriptions of petitioner’s difficulties in developing learning objectives, using lesson plans, maintaining academic rigor, meeting students’ varying needs, facilitating “accountable talk” through “higher order thinking questions,” and actively engaging students, among other things, as well as managing her classroom, and petitioner’s persistent failure to improve despite the ongoing individualized professional development support she received.

Petitioner’s contention that she was not provided with sufficient time or feedback to remediate perceived deficiencies is belied by the record.

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

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman 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 (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 6, 2016, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education, dated November 5, 2014, which sustained petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2013-2014 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner’s performance as a teacher of English as a second language during the 2013-2014 school year was unsatisfactory is not arbitrary and capricious (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 Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2014]). The determination is rationally supported by the principal’s detailed descriptions of petitioner’s difficulties in developing learning objectives, using lesson plans, maintaining academic rigor, meeting students’ varying needs, facilitating “accountable talk” through “higher order thinking questions,” and actively engaging students, among other things, as well as managing her classroom, and petitioner’s persistent failure to improve despite the ongoing individualized professional development support she received.

Petitioner’s contention that she was not provided with sufficient time or feedback to remediate perceived deficiencies is belied by the record.

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

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3891, 150 A.D.3d 501, 55 N.Y.S.3d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-meyers-v-department-of-educ-of-the-city-of-ny-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack