Home/New York Court of Appeals/Morley v. Arricale

Morley v. Arricale

486 N.E.2d 824, 66 N.Y.2d 665, 495 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17197
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 10, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 486 N.E.2d 824 (Morley v. Arricale) 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
Morley v. Arricale, 486 N.E.2d 824, 66 N.Y.2d 665, 495 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17197 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that determinations as to the qualifications of candidates for pedagogical positions are within the purview of the Board of Education (see, Matter of Council of Supervisory Assns. v Board of Educ., 56 Misc 2d 32, 37-38, affd 31 AD2d 34, revd on other grounds 23 NY2d 458). Absent a showing that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously, the court may not substitute its own judgment for the Board’s on [667]*667matters entrusted by law to the Board’s own specialized knowledge and judgment (Matter of Antell v Board of Educ., 21 Misc 2d 119, 125, affd 10 AD2d 699).

Petitioner has not made any showing that the Board action was arbitrary or capricious. Petitioner failed to produce the requisite "contemporaneous documentation” to validate his administrative assistant time as supervisory experience. The Board therefore found that petitioner lacked the requisite two years of supervisory experience, and therefore acted in compliance with applicable Chancellor’s Regulation C-261 and regulatory Special Circular 30-R. There is a reasonable basis for requiring the supervisory documentation be contemporaneous, in that the review process is made more objective and fair. Further, the competitive selection procedure leading to assignment or appointment of a principal under Special Circular 30-R cannot be subverted without violating NY Constitution, article V, § 6.

Estoppel is not available against a local government unit for the purpose of ratifying an administrative error (the actions of the Community School Board and its Superintendent in appointing petitioner as principal) made without compliance with formally adopted selection standards and procedures (see, Matter of Bloomberg-Dubin v Board of Educ., 82 AD2d 854, 856, affd 56 NY2d 555).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone 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

People ex rel. Johnson v. Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility
47 Misc. 3d 984 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk
799 F. Supp. 2d 186 (E.D. New York, 2011)
Carter v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
31 Misc. 3d 430 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Lidakis v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
27 Misc. 3d 1150 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Idlewild 94-100 Clark, LLC v. City of New York
27 Misc. 3d 1006 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation
523 F. Supp. 2d 185 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Palm Management Corp. v. Goldstein
29 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Hutchinson v. New York City Housing Authority
19 A.D.3d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Orchard Grove of Dutchess, Inc. v. State
1 Misc. 3d 810 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2003)
Nelson v. Roberts
304 A.D.2d 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Beck v. Walker
286 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Renaud v. City of New York
269 A.D.2d 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Oxenhorn v. Fleet Trust Co.
722 N.E.2d 492 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
United States v. Schmitt
999 F. Supp. 317 (E.D. New York, 1998)
Walls v. Giuliani
916 F. Supp. 214 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Vacca v. Town of Southeast
206 A.D.2d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Grishman v. City of New York
183 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
San Marco Construction Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
162 A.D.2d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Smithwick v. Levitt
154 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Meltzer v. City of New York
146 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
486 N.E.2d 824, 66 N.Y.2d 665, 495 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morley-v-arricale-ny-1985.