Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF VITO v. Nyquist

MATTER OF VITO v. Nyquist

371 N.E.2d 788, 43 N.Y.2d 681, 401 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2494
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 15, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 371 N.E.2d 788 (MATTER OF VITO v. Nyquist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF VITO v. Nyquist, 371 N.E.2d 788, 43 N.Y.2d 681, 401 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2494 (N.Y. 1977).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Board of Education for the City of Yonkers decided to close seven schools within the district, including School 15. Petitioners appealed the board’s decision to the commissioner (see Education Law, § 310), alleging that the board had failed to consider the safety of pupils forced to travel hazardous routes to reach their reassigned schools. The commissioner, on an adequate record before him, affirmed the board’s decision, which he found to have been "based on a number of factors, including the safety of pupils.”

The standard of judicial review for decisions of the commissioner is now governed by CPLR 7803 (subd [3]) (see L 1976, ch 857, amdg Education Law, § 310, eff Oct. 25, 1976). Of the three grounds for overturning agency action within that subdivision, the only issue now before us is whether the determination made by the commissioner was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329). We agree with the Appellate Division that the commissioner’s affirmance possesses the requisite degree of rationality and *683 was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of 330 Rest. Corp. v State Liq. Auth., 26 NY2d 375; Matter of Taub v Pirnie, 3 NY2d 188, 194-195).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Winn v. Rensselaer County Conditional Release Commission
6 A.D.3d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Karedes v. Colella
292 A.D.2d 138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Clark v. Board of Education for the Kingston City School District
236 A.D.2d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Hunt v. Hamilton County
235 A.D.2d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Davila v. New York City Housing Authority
190 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Stortecky v. Mazzone
156 Misc. 2d 16 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Waldman v. United Talmudical Academy
147 Misc. 2d 529 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
Briedis v. Village of Tuxedo Park
156 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Burrell v. Ortiz
128 A.D.2d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Rappo v. City of New York Human Resources Administration
120 A.D.2d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency v. Manculich
119 A.D.2d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Jones v. Kennedy
112 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Nassau Boces Central Council of Teachers v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services
469 N.E.2d 511 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
230 Tenants Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals
101 A.D.2d 53 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
MATTER OF ORG. TO ASSURE SERVS. FOR EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS, INC. v. Ambach
434 N.E.2d 1330 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
Organization to Assure Services for Exceptional Students, Inc. v. Ambach
434 N.E.2d 1330 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
Organization to Assure Services for Exceptional Students, Inc. v. Ambach
82 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Engle v. Pulver
80 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
McBride v. Perez
80 A.D.2d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Marlow v. Kobliner
78 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
371 N.E.2d 788, 43 N.Y.2d 681, 401 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-vito-v-nyquist-ny-1977.