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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

128 A.D.3d 590, 10 N.Y.S.3d 62

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

DecidedMay 26, 2015

Docket15214 101122/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 590 (Matter of Roman 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 Roman v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 128 A.D.3d 590, 10 N.Y.S.3d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered March 7, 2014, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirming an arbitral award, dated July 25, 2013, which terminated petitioner’s employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The termination of petitioner’s employment does not shock our sense of fairness (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). *591 Petitioner’s conduct may be described as verbal and physical abuse of students, and verbal abuse of one student’s parent; it continued for a period of three academic years, even after several letters were placed in petitioner’s file memorializing the complaints, one of which warned that further incidents could lead to termination (compare Matter of Camacho v City of New York, 106 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2013] [after settling prior disciplinary charges, petitioner entered into stipulation agreeing that if she were to be found guilty after a hearing of verbally abusing students she would be terminated]). Petitioner has taken no responsibility for his actions, repeatedly denying most of the incidents despite corroborating evidence, and has shown no remorse. After considering petitioner’s long, otherwise satisfactory tenure and the principle of progressive discipline, the hearing officer properly found that petitioner’s repeated misconduct and the several occasions on which he was warned about it to no avail rendered termination appropriate (compare Matter of Weinstein v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 19 AD3d 165 [1st Dept 2005] [penalty for single incident of improper use of physical force shocking to conscience where petitioner was carrying out assigned duty of denying access to locker room to all but gym class students], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, 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 (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered March 7, 2014, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirming an arbitral award, dated July 25, 2013, which terminated petitioner’s employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The termination of petitioner’s employment does not shock our sense of fairness (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]). *591 Petitioner’s conduct may be described as verbal and physical abuse of students, and verbal abuse of one student’s parent; it continued for a period of three academic years, even after several letters were placed in petitioner’s file memorializing the complaints, one of which warned that further incidents could lead to termination (compare Matter of Camacho v City of New York, 106 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2013] [after settling prior disciplinary charges, petitioner entered into stipulation agreeing that if she were to be found guilty after a hearing of verbally abusing students she would be terminated]). Petitioner has taken no responsibility for his actions, repeatedly denying most of the incidents despite corroborating evidence, and has shown no remorse. After considering petitioner’s long, otherwise satisfactory tenure and the principle of progressive discipline, the hearing officer properly found that petitioner’s repeated misconduct and the several occasions on which he was warned about it to no avail rendered termination appropriate (compare Matter of Weinstein v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 19 AD3d 165 [1st Dept 2005] [penalty for single incident of improper use of physical force shocking to conscience where petitioner was carrying out assigned duty of denying access to locker room to all but gym class students], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 590, 10 N.Y.S.3d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-roman-v-new-york-city-dept-of-educ-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack