Rendell v. Alioto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rendell v. Alioto

42 A.D.2d 597, 344 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171

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

DecidedJune 18, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 597 (Rendell v. Alioto) 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

Rendell v. Alioto, 42 A.D.2d 597, 344 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review two determinations of appellant Superintendent of Schools, (1) the first, dated April 12, 1972 and made after a hearing, (a) stating that petitioner, a teacher in appellants’ school system, had engaged in a strike and (b) imposing penalties prescribed by section 210 (subd. 2, pars, [f], [g]) of the Civil Service Law, and (2) the second, dated June 21, 1972, transferring petitioner to a "Permanent Substitute Pool” status, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchéster County, dated September 13, 1972, which inter alla reinstated petitioner [o her former position, with seniority, tenure and restoration of salary rights and other benefits. Judgment reversed and determinations annulled, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to appellants for a new hearing and determination. We agree with Special Term that petitioner was deprived of due process in that she was not given a fair hearing. She was not afforded an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses; sworn statements were not taken; stenographic minutes were not taken at the hearing; and findings of fact were not made. However, it is our opinion that under the circumstances of this case the appropriate remedy is a new hearing at which petitioner’s rights will be safeguarded. We reach no other question. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review two determinations of appellant Superintendent of Schools, (1) the first, dated April 12, 1972 and made after a hearing, (a) stating that petitioner, a teacher in appellants’ school system, had engaged in a strike and (b) imposing penalties prescribed by section 210 (subd. 2, pars, [f], [g]) of the Civil Service Law, and (2) the second, dated June 21, 1972, transferring petitioner to a "Permanent Substitute Pool” status, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchéster County, dated September 13, 1972, which inter alla reinstated petitioner [o her former position, with seniority, tenure and restoration of salary rights and other benefits. Judgment reversed and determinations annulled, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to appellants for a new hearing and determination. We agree with Special Term that petitioner was deprived of due process in that she was not given a fair hearing. She was not afforded an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses; sworn statements were not taken; stenographic minutes were not taken at the hearing; and findings of fact were not made. However, it is our opinion that under the circumstances of this case the appropriate remedy is a new hearing at which petitioner’s rights will be safeguarded. We reach no other question. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 597, 344 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rendell-v-alioto-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack