Schroeter v. Yonkers City School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schroeter v. Yonkers City School District

87 A.D.3d 1145, 930 N.Y.2d 461

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1145 (Schroeter v. Yonkers City School District) 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

Schroeter v. Yonkers City School District, 87 A.D.3d 1145, 930 N.Y.2d 461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1146]*1146Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he was guilty of misconduct, insubordination, and incompetence was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Capone v Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist., 38 AD3d 770, 771-772 [2007]; Matter of Truss v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 301 AD2d 607, 607-608 [2003]; Matter of Grossman v Kralik, 217 AD2d 625, 626 [1995]; Matter of A. J. & Taylor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; Matter of Romano v Town Bd. of Town of Colonie, 200 AD2d 934 [1994]). Moreover, the petitioner was not deprived of due process during the course of the administrative hearing (see Matter of A.J. & Taylor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; see also Matter of Heisler v Scappaticci, 81 AD3d 954, 954-955 [2011]; Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[1146]*1146Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he was guilty of misconduct, insubordination, and incompetence was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Capone v Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist., 38 AD3d 770, 771-772 [2007]; Matter of Truss v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 301 AD2d 607, 607-608 [2003]; Matter of Grossman v Kralik, 217 AD2d 625, 626 [1995]; Matter of A. J. & Taylor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; Matter of Romano v Town Bd. of Town of Colonie, 200 AD2d 934 [1994]). Moreover, the petitioner was not deprived of due process during the course of the administrative hearing (see Matter of A.J. & Taylor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]; see also Matter of Heisler v Scappaticci, 81 AD3d 954, 954-955 [2011]; Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 1145, 930 N.Y.2d 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schroeter-v-yonkers-city-school-district-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack