Sarro v. New York City Board of Education

New York Court of Appeals

Sarro v. New York City Board of Education

393 N.E.2d 477, 47 N.Y.2d 913, 419 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2171

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 393 N.E.2d 477 (Sarro v. New York City Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sarro v. New York City Board of Education, 393 N.E.2d 477, 47 N.Y.2d 913, 419 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2171 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the determination of the board of education confirmed and the petition dismissed.

It was error for the Appellate Division to have reduced the suspension imposed by the board of education from five to three years (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234; Matter of Bott v Board of Educ., 41 NY2d 265). The courts should show particular deference in matters of internal discipline to determinations made by boards of education which possess a peculiar sensitivity to and comprehension of the complexities and nuances of personnel administration and have responsibility for appropriate accommodation of the points of view of administration, teachers, pupils, parents and the community. (Cf. Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182, 184-185; see Matter of Harris v Mechanicville Cent. School Dist., 45 NY2d 279, 285.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum; Judge Meyer concurs on constraint of Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. (34 NY2d 222).

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the determination of the board of education confirmed and the petition dismissed.

It was error for the Appellate Division to have reduced the suspension imposed by the board of education from five to three years (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234; Matter of Bott v Board of Educ., 41 NY2d 265). The courts should show particular deference in matters of internal discipline to determinations made by boards of education which possess a peculiar sensitivity to and comprehension of the complexities and nuances of personnel administration and have responsibility for appropriate accommodation of the points of view of administration, teachers, pupils, parents and the community. (Cf. Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182, 184-185; see Matter of Harris v Mechanicville Cent. School Dist., 45 NY2d 279, 285.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum; Judge Meyer concurs on constraint of Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. (34 NY2d 222).

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 N.E.2d 477, 47 N.Y.2d 913, 419 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarro-v-new-york-city-board-of-education-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack