Scott D. v. New York City Department of Education

13 A.D.3d 621, 786 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15649

This text of 13 A.D.3d 621 (Scott D. v. New York City Department 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
Scott D. v. New York City Department of Education, 13 A.D.3d 621, 786 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 and Education Law § 3020-a to review a determination of a hearing officer dated December 4, 2002, which, after a hearing, found Scott D. guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment with the New York City Department of Education, formerly known as the New York City Board of Education, Scott D. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated November 3, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the appellant correctly asserts that the Supreme Court [622]*622improperly unsealed the records pertaining to the terminated criminal proceeding against him (see Matter of Scott D., 13 AD3d 622 [2004] [decided herewith]), we reject the contention that the use of the unsealed records at the disciplinary hearing brought by the New York City Department of Education against the appellant requires that the hearing officer’s determination be set aside (see Matter of Charles Q. v Constantine, 85 NY2d 571 [1995]; People v Patterson, 78 NY2d 711 [1991]; People v Torres, 291 AD2d 273 [2002]). We also reject the appellant’s assertion that the hearing officer discriminated against him based on his arrest, as the record demonstrates that he was disciplined for the conduct underlying the arrest.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition to set aside the hearing officer’s determination, since the determination was supported by substantial evidence and the appellant was not deprived of a fair hearing by the admission into evidence of the erroneously-unsealed records (see Matter of Charles Q. v Constantine, supra). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

CHARLES Q. v. Constantine
650 N.E.2d 839 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Patterson
587 N.E.2d 255 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
In re Scott D.
13 A.D.3d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Torres
291 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 621, 786 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-d-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2004.