Matter of St. Vil v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of St. Vil v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

133 A.D.3d 438, 19 N.Y.S.3d 51

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2015

Docket15964 100147/13

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 438 (Matter of St. Vil v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. 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 St. Vil v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 133 A.D.3d 438, 19 N.Y.S.3d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 28, 2014, denying the petition *439 to annul respondents’ determination, dated September 19, 2012, which sustained petitioner teacher’s unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the unsatisfactory rating annulled, and the matter remanded to respondents for further proceedings.

The record demonstrates deficiencies in the performance review process resulting in petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2010-2011 school year that were not merely technical but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process (see Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Kolmel v City of New York, 88 AD3d 527, 529 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Brown v City of New York, 111 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2013]).

Petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating was based primarily on the principal’s alleged personal observations as a rating officer. However, petitioner never received any post-observation reports by the rating officer until the U-rating appeal hearing and the principal does not claim to have spoken with petitioner following the alleged observations. Nor were comments critical of petitioner’s performance placed in his file. Thus, there is no evidence that petitioner was notified before the end of the school year, in June 2011, that his work was considered unsatisfactory. The mere fact that he had the assistance of a guidance counselor and literary coach at some time during the school year did not constitute warning that he was at risk of an unsatisfactory rating since petitioner was never told that he was not improving in the areas of concern despite this assistance. Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, 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 28, 2014, denying the petition *439 to annul respondents’ determination, dated September 19, 2012, which sustained petitioner teacher’s unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the unsatisfactory rating annulled, and the matter remanded to respondents for further proceedings.

The record demonstrates deficiencies in the performance review process resulting in petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2010-2011 school year that were not merely technical but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process (see Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Kolmel v City of New York, 88 AD3d 527, 529 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Brown v City of New York, 111 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2013]).

Petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating was based primarily on the principal’s alleged personal observations as a rating officer. However, petitioner never received any post-observation reports by the rating officer until the U-rating appeal hearing and the principal does not claim to have spoken with petitioner following the alleged observations. Nor were comments critical of petitioner’s performance placed in his file. Thus, there is no evidence that petitioner was notified before the end of the school year, in June 2011, that his work was considered unsatisfactory. The mere fact that he had the assistance of a guidance counselor and literary coach at some time during the school year did not constitute warning that he was at risk of an unsatisfactory rating since petitioner was never told that he was not improving in the areas of concern despite this assistance. Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 438, 19 N.Y.S.3d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-st-vil-v-board-of-educ-of-the-city-sch-dist-of-the-city-of-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack