Sapadin v. Board of Education

246 A.D.2d 359, 666 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 220
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 359 (Sapadin 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
Sapadin v. Board of Education, 246 A.D.2d 359, 666 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered April 9, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination terminating his employment as a probationary teacher, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that petitioner, a union member, has no right to sue respondent to enforce a provision of the collective bargaining agreement absent a showing that the union breached its duty of fair representation (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501, 511, cert denied sub nom. Margolin v Board of Educ., 485 US 1034). The mere refusal by a union to proceed with a grievance does not in itself establish a breach of the duty of fair representation (see, Albino [360]*360v City of New York, 80 AD2d 261, 270). Rather, “there must be a showing that the activity, or lack thereof, which formed the basis of the charges against the union was deliberately invidious, arbitrary or founded in bad faith” (Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 132 AD2d 430, 432, affd on other grounds 73 NY2d 796).

The court also properly held that petitioner prematurely sought judicial review without waiting to learn the determination of the review process provided by the contract and section 5.3.4 of respondent’s bylaws (see, Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ., 71 NY2d 763, 766; Lewis v Macchiarola, 73 AD2d 663, affd 53 NY2d 629).

Finally, petitioner failed to show that the termination of his probationary appointment was made in bad faith (see, Matter of Blum v Quinones, 139 AD2d 509, appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 908). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Flowers v. District Council 37
2025 NY Slip Op 02720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Mooney v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2020 NY Slip Op 65 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Finkelstein v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.
2017 NY Slip Op 3850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Gil v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.
2017 NY Slip Op 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
City of Employees Union Local 237 v. City of New York
28 A.D.3d 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Moreira-Brown v. New York City Board of Education
288 A.D.2d 21 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Parisi v. New York City Housing Authority
269 A.D.2d 210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 359, 666 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sapadin-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1998.