Montanez v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montanez v. Department of Education

110 A.D.3d 487, 973 N.Y.S.2d 132

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 487 (Montanez v. Department of Education) 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

Montanez v. Department of Education, 110 A.D.3d 487, 973 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 29, 2011, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated April 9, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher, confirming the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[488]*488Upon review of the transcript provided on appeal, we conclude that the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner fraudulently-obtained a free New York City public school education for her son during the 2009-2010 school year is supported by adequate evidence in the record (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner did not urge the hearing officer to apply a heightened standard in finding fraud.

Although petitioner has an unblemished record as a teacher and offered to resolve the dispute by making restitution, the penalty of termination is not shocking in light of her having used a fraudulent affidavit to obtain a free New York City education for her non-resident child (see Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 83 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2011]; compare Matter of Guzman v City of New York, 105 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33408(U).]

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 29, 2011, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated April 9, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher, confirming the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[488]*488Upon review of the transcript provided on appeal, we conclude that the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner fraudulently-obtained a free New York City public school education for her son during the 2009-2010 school year is supported by adequate evidence in the record (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner did not urge the hearing officer to apply a heightened standard in finding fraud.

Although petitioner has an unblemished record as a teacher and offered to resolve the dispute by making restitution, the penalty of termination is not shocking in light of her having used a fraudulent affidavit to obtain a free New York City education for her non-resident child (see Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 83 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2011]; compare Matter of Guzman v City of New York, 105 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33408(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 487, 973 N.Y.S.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montanez-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack