Roemer v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roemer v. Board of Education

268 A.D.2d 479, 701 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 553

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 479 (Roemer 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

Roemer v. Board of Education, 268 A.D.2d 479, 701 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 and Education Law § 3020-a (5) to vacate a determination of a Hearing Officer which, after a hearing, sustained charges of rendering incompetent service and insubordination and terminated the petitioner’s employment, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 10, 1998, which granted the respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[480]*480The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not demonstrate any basis for vacating the determination pursuant to CPLR 7511 (see, Education Law § 3020-a [5]; Matter of Fischer v Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 262 AD2d 560). As a result, it is unnecessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contentions which, in any event, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, 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 75 and Education Law § 3020-a (5) to vacate a determination of a Hearing Officer which, after a hearing, sustained charges of rendering incompetent service and insubordination and terminated the petitioner’s employment, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 10, 1998, which granted the respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[480]*480The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not demonstrate any basis for vacating the determination pursuant to CPLR 7511 (see, Education Law § 3020-a [5]; Matter of Fischer v Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 262 AD2d 560). As a result, it is unnecessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contentions which, in any event, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 479, 701 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roemer-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack