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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

134 A.D.3d 499, 20 N.Y.S.3d 526

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

Docket16373 653927/13

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 499 (Matter of Reed 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 Reed v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 134 A.D.3d 499, 20 N.Y.S.3d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered September 30, 2014, dismissing the petition to vacate and/or modify the opinion and award, dated October 21, 2013, which, after a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, terminated petitioner’s employment as a tenured teacher, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The charges and specifications of incompetent and ineffective service, during three school years, are supported by adequate evidence showing that petitioner failed to plan and execute lessons, as observed on multiple enumerated dates (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]). The evidence shows that petitioner continually refused to accept responsibility for her failure to deliver effective instruction. In particular, she failed to implement the school administration’s professional development recommendations with regard to lesson planning preparation and execution, proper pacing of lessons, ensuring students stay on task, and assessing students’ progress, among other things.

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see Lackow, 51 AD3d at 569).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, 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 (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered September 30, 2014, dismissing the petition to vacate and/or modify the opinion and award, dated October 21, 2013, which, after a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, terminated petitioner’s employment as a tenured teacher, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The charges and specifications of incompetent and ineffective service, during three school years, are supported by adequate evidence showing that petitioner failed to plan and execute lessons, as observed on multiple enumerated dates (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]). The evidence shows that petitioner continually refused to accept responsibility for her failure to deliver effective instruction. In particular, she failed to implement the school administration’s professional development recommendations with regard to lesson planning preparation and execution, proper pacing of lessons, ensuring students stay on task, and assessing students’ progress, among other things.

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see Lackow, 51 AD3d at 569).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 499, 20 N.Y.S.3d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-reed-v-department-of-educ-of-the-city-of-ny-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack