Solis v. Department of Education

30 A.D.3d 532, 817 N.Y.S.2d 901
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 532 (Solis v. 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
Solis v. Department of Education, 30 A.D.3d 532, 817 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 and Education Law § 3020-a to vacate a determination of a hearing officer dated January 7, 2005, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment with the Department of Education of the City of New York, the appeal, as limited by the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated June 15, 2005, as granted the petition to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed from termination to suspension for a period of six months.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the appellants for the imposition of a penalty less than termination.

In light of, among other things, the petitioner’s otherwise unblemished 12-year record as a teacher, the penalty of termination of employment was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Hegarty v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 AD3d 771 [2004]; Matter of Weinstein v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 19 AD3d 165 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]; cf. Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 [1974]; Matter of DeStefano v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 26 AD3d 433 [2006]). However, the Department of Education of the City of New York, instead of the Supreme Court, should have imposed a different penalty. Thus, we remit the matter to the appellants for the imposition of a penalty less than termination (cf. Matter of DeStefano v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, supra). Crane, J.E, Ritter, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of O'Brien v. Yonkers City Sch. Dist.
191 N.Y.S.3d 94 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Kimble v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ.
186 N.Y.S.3d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Bolt v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
2016 NY Slip Op 8158 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Douglas v. New York City Department of Education
52 Misc. 3d 816 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Matter of Fernandez v. New York City Tr. Auth.
120 A.D.3d 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Mauro v. Walcott
115 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Brito v. Walcott
115 A.D.3d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Saunders v. Rock-land Board of Cooperative Educational Services
62 A.D.3d 1012 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 532, 817 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solis-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2006.