Murphy v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Board of Education

67 A.D.2d 978, 413 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10771

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 978 (Murphy v. Board 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

Murphy v. Board of Education, 67 A.D.2d 978, 413 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner to his position as a high school teacher, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 5, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We are affirming solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We do not adopt the reasoning of Special Term in relation to a due process hearing and have not reached the issue of whether, [979]*979under the circumstances of this record, petitioner may have been terminated before the end of his probationary period or for improper reasons. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, O’Connor and Lazer, 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 compel respondents to reinstate petitioner to his position as a high school teacher, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 5, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We are affirming solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We do not adopt the reasoning of Special Term in relation to a due process hearing and have not reached the issue of whether, [979]*979under the circumstances of this record, petitioner may have been terminated before the end of his probationary period or for improper reasons. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 978, 413 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1979.