Walker v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Board of Education

78 A.D.2d 982, 433 N.Y.S.2d 660, 30 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1014, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 982 (Walker 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

Walker v. Board of Education, 78 A.D.2d 982, 433 N.Y.S.2d 660, 30 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1014, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed, without prejudice to any administrative action deemed advisable. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss petitioners’ CPLR article 78 petition challenging its decision to close Hillside Elementary School and to reassign the students to other schools in the district. Respondent contends that review of the school closing decision is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education and is not initially reviewable in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Education Law, § 310). The general rule is that an appeal to the commissioner is the exclusive remedy where the issue involves “the professional judgment and discretion of those responsible for the administration of public schools” (Matter of Bokhair v Board of Educ., 43 NY2d 855, 856, citing James v Board of Educ., 42 NY2d 357; accord Hoffman v Board of Educ., 49 NY2d 121; Donohue v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 47 NY2d 440). Where, however, a statutory or constitutional provision is the basis of the dispute or where discrete issues of law are present which do not involve matters of policy, review of a school board’s decision by the courts is proper (see James v Board of Educ., supra, pp 365-366). Petitioners seek to review a discretionary decision involving the exercise of professional judgment in a school matter which does not raise a constitutional or statutory issue or a discrete question of law, i.e., whether an elementary school should be closed in the light of various considerations such as finances and safety. Petitioners’ exclusive remedy is an appeal under section 310 of the Education Law. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court — art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed, without prejudice to any administrative action deemed advisable. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss petitioners’ CPLR article 78 petition challenging its decision to close Hillside Elementary School and to reassign the students to other schools in the district. Respondent contends that review of the school closing decision is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education and is not initially reviewable in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Education Law, § 310). The general rule is that an appeal to the commissioner is the exclusive remedy where the issue involves “the professional judgment and discretion of those responsible for the administration of public schools” (Matter of Bokhair v Board of Educ., 43 NY2d 855, 856, citing James v Board of Educ., 42 NY2d 357; accord Hoffman v Board of Educ., 49 NY2d 121; Donohue v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 47 NY2d 440). Where, however, a statutory or constitutional provision is the basis of the dispute or where discrete issues of law are present which do not involve matters of policy, review of a school board’s decision by the courts is proper (see James v Board of Educ., supra, pp 365-366). Petitioners seek to review a discretionary decision involving the exercise of professional judgment in a school matter which does not raise a constitutional or statutory issue or a discrete question of law, i.e., whether an elementary school should be closed in the light of various considerations such as finances and safety. Petitioners’ exclusive remedy is an appeal under section 310 of the Education Law. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court — art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 982, 433 N.Y.S.2d 660, 30 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1014, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack