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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

119 A.D.3d 870, 989 N.Y.S.2d 388

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

DecidedJuly 23, 2014

Docket2013-02101

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.3d 870 (Matter of Wallace 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 Wallace v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 119 A.D.3d 870, 989 N.Y.S.2d 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Education dated November 19, 2010, which upheld the discontinuance of the petitioner’s probationary service in the position of assistant principal, the New York City Department of Education appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated November 19, 2012, as granted the petition to the extent of remitting the matter to it “for the imposition of a penalty other than termination.”

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention and the Supreme Court’s determination, the challenged administrative determination merely discontinued the petitioner’s probationary service as an assistant principal, and did not terminate her employment with the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter the appellant) altogether. Accordingly, having found that there was a valid basis for the appellant’s determination that the petitioner’s probationary service was unsatisfactory (see generally Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 18 NY3d 457, 471 [2012]; Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]; Matter of Lane v City of New York, 92 AD3d 786 [2012]), the Supreme Court erred by, in effect, directing the appellant to take some alternative ameliorative measure other than the discontinuation of her probationary service.

Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Education dated November 19, 2010, which upheld the discontinuance of the petitioner’s probationary service in the position of assistant principal, the New York City Department of Education appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated November 19, 2012, as granted the petition to the extent of remitting the matter to it “for the imposition of a penalty other than termination.”

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention and the Supreme Court’s determination, the challenged administrative determination merely discontinued the petitioner’s probationary service as an assistant principal, and did not terminate her employment with the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter the appellant) altogether. Accordingly, having found that there was a valid basis for the appellant’s determination that the petitioner’s probationary service was unsatisfactory (see generally Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 18 NY3d 457, 471 [2012]; Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]; Matter of Lane v City of New York, 92 AD3d 786 [2012]), the Supreme Court erred by, in effect, directing the appellant to take some alternative ameliorative measure other than the discontinuation of her probationary service.

Mastro, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 870, 989 N.Y.S.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wallace-v-new-york-city-dept-of-educ-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack