Pordum v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pordum v. State

112 A.D.2d 717, 492 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56224

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1985

DocketClaim No. 61310

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 717 (Pordum v. State) 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

Pordum v. State, 112 A.D.2d 717, 492 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We find that the Commissioner of Education had sufficient authority under Education Law §§ 308, 305 (7) to direct the City of Lackawanna Board of Education not to reinstate petitioner until the hearing concerning his fitness to possess a teaching certificate had been concluded (see, Laurence Univ. v State of New York, 41 AD2d 463; and see generally, Matter of Board of Educ. v Allen, 6 NY2d 127, 138). Under the circumstances, the Commissioner’s exercise of that authority was not an abuse of discretion. Because the Commissioner’s conduct was proper, claimant has no cause of action in tort. Inasmuch as there was no employment relationship with the State, petitioner has no claim for back pay based on contract (cf. Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 534).

All concur, except Callahan, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and remit the matter, in accordance with the following memorandum.

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

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We find that the Commissioner of Education had sufficient authority under Education Law §§ 308, 305 (7) to direct the City of Lackawanna Board of Education not to reinstate petitioner until the hearing concerning his fitness to possess a teaching certificate had been concluded (see, Laurence Univ. v State of New York, 41 AD2d 463; and see generally, Matter of Board of Educ. v Allen, 6 NY2d 127, 138). Under the circumstances, the Commissioner’s exercise of that authority was not an abuse of discretion. Because the Commissioner’s conduct was proper, claimant has no cause of action in tort. Inasmuch as there was no employment relationship with the State, petitioner has no claim for back pay based on contract (cf. Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 534).

All concur, except Callahan, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and remit the matter, in accordance with the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 717, 492 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pordum-v-state-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack