Sachs v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sachs v. Board of Education

71 A.D.2d 898, 419 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13152

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 898 (Sachs 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

Sachs v. Board of Education, 71 A.D.2d 898, 419 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

—In a [899]*899proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as a tenured teacher, following his dismissal upon a recommendation not to grant him tenure, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 20, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or the violation of a statutory proscription, a probationary employee "may be dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all” (Matter of Venes v Community School Bd. of Dist. 26, 43 NY2d 520, 525). Here, the petitioner alleges that he was denied tenure for the impermissible purpose of retaliating against him for his prior participation in an illegal strike. However, he has entirely failed to come forth with any evidentiary showing which would lend credence to his claim or which would require an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner’s efforts to controvert the six reasons which were given for the recommendation to deny him tenure are insufficient to raise triable issues. Although some of the reasons are subject to dispute, they are nevertheless not without support and at least one of the reasons (poor attendance record) is of obvious merit. It is plain that the six reasons were not mere subterfuge to achieve an impermissible end. Similarly, the respondents’ prior insistence that the petitioner be punished to the full extent of the law for his illegal strike activities does not imply a subsequent motivation to impermissibly exceed the available legal remedies. Indeed, the contrary inference is demonstrated by the respondents having granted tenure to 10 other persons who had participated in the strike and who were punished in the same manner as the petitioner. The record is devoid of any evidentiary showing on the ultimate issue of retaliation. In the absence of any indication that the petitioner’s claim is tenable or that there is a material issue which requires a hearing, it was proper to dismiss the petition (cf. James v Board of Educ., 37 NY2d 891). Lazer, J. P., Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

—In a [899]*899proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as a tenured teacher, following his dismissal upon a recommendation not to grant him tenure, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 20, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or the violation of a statutory proscription, a probationary employee "may be dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all” (Matter of Venes v Community School Bd. of Dist. 26, 43 NY2d 520, 525). Here, the petitioner alleges that he was denied tenure for the impermissible purpose of retaliating against him for his prior participation in an illegal strike. However, he has entirely failed to come forth with any evidentiary showing which would lend credence to his claim or which would require an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner’s efforts to controvert the six reasons which were given for the recommendation to deny him tenure are insufficient to raise triable issues. Although some of the reasons are subject to dispute, they are nevertheless not without support and at least one of the reasons (poor attendance record) is of obvious merit. It is plain that the six reasons were not mere subterfuge to achieve an impermissible end. Similarly, the respondents’ prior insistence that the petitioner be punished to the full extent of the law for his illegal strike activities does not imply a subsequent motivation to impermissibly exceed the available legal remedies. Indeed, the contrary inference is demonstrated by the respondents having granted tenure to 10 other persons who had participated in the strike and who were punished in the same manner as the petitioner. The record is devoid of any evidentiary showing on the ultimate issue of retaliation. In the absence of any indication that the petitioner’s claim is tenable or that there is a material issue which requires a hearing, it was proper to dismiss the petition (cf. James v Board of Educ., 37 NY2d 891). Lazer, J. P., Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 898, 419 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sachs-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack