Siegel v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Board of Education

58 A.D.3d 474, 870 N.Y.S.2d 341

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 474 (Siegel 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

Siegel v. Board of Education, 58 A.D.3d 474, 870 N.Y.S.2d 341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered September 5, 2007, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of respondents terminating petitioner’s employment as a tenured teacher and to restore petitioner to his position with back pay, interest and lost benefits as of the effective date of his termination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly held that respondents did not act arbi[475]*475trarily and capriciously when rejecting petitioner’s belated request for a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (2) (c) (see e.g. Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Respondents had a rational basis for concluding that petitioner’s explanation that his mental condition which had particularly manifested itself in May and June 2006, the time when he was served with the notice of the charges against him, did not constitute a valid excuse for failing to timely request a hearing. The record reveals that petitioner was served with the charges personally and by mail, he had been represented by counsel during the investigation and had been told that charges were forthcoming, and, during the period in which he claimed he was too stressed to properly function, he was able to function by managing his day-to-day activities, including reporting to his assigned work location, and signing time sheets so he could be paid.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered September 5, 2007, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of respondents terminating petitioner’s employment as a tenured teacher and to restore petitioner to his position with back pay, interest and lost benefits as of the effective date of his termination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly held that respondents did not act arbi[475]*475trarily and capriciously when rejecting petitioner’s belated request for a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (2) (c) (see e.g. Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Respondents had a rational basis for concluding that petitioner’s explanation that his mental condition which had particularly manifested itself in May and June 2006, the time when he was served with the notice of the charges against him, did not constitute a valid excuse for failing to timely request a hearing. The record reveals that petitioner was served with the charges personally and by mail, he had been represented by counsel during the investigation and had been told that charges were forthcoming, and, during the period in which he claimed he was too stressed to properly function, he was able to function by managing his day-to-day activities, including reporting to his assigned work location, and signing time sheets so he could be paid.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 474, 870 N.Y.S.2d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack