Matter of Van Rabenswaay v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Van Rabenswaay v. City of New York

140 A.D.3d 596, 33 N.Y.S.3d 699

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

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket1571 101036/14

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 596 (Matter of Van Rabenswaay v. City of New York) 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 Van Rabenswaay v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 596, 33 N.Y.S.3d 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2015, denying the petition to annul respondents’ determination, which upheld petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2012-2013 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The evidence that petitioner failed to timely complete individualized education plans (IEPs) for at least five of her students, despite repeated warnings and offers of assistance from the IEP coordinator, provided a rational basis for the rating (see e.g. Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]; Batyreva v New York City Dept. of Educ., 50 AD3d 283 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner’s various excuses, even if valid, would not warrant a finding that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. To accept them would amount to second-guessing the determination that her repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U-rating (see Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92 [1999]).

Furthermore, petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any issue of fact that could show, even if resolved in her favor, arbitrary and capricious action under the circumstances. Thus, there was no need for the court to have conducted a hearing (see CPLR 7804 [h]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Kapnick 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 (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2015, denying the petition to annul respondents’ determination, which upheld petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2012-2013 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The evidence that petitioner failed to timely complete individualized education plans (IEPs) for at least five of her students, despite repeated warnings and offers of assistance from the IEP coordinator, provided a rational basis for the rating (see e.g. Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]; Batyreva v New York City Dept. of Educ., 50 AD3d 283 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner’s various excuses, even if valid, would not warrant a finding that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. To accept them would amount to second-guessing the determination that her repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U-rating (see Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92 [1999]).

Furthermore, petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any issue of fact that could show, even if resolved in her favor, arbitrary and capricious action under the circumstances. Thus, there was no need for the court to have conducted a hearing (see CPLR 7804 [h]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 596, 33 N.Y.S.3d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-van-rabenswaay-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack