Young v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. Board of Education

41 A.D.2d 966, 344 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344

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

DecidedMay 29, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 966 (Young 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

Young v. Board of Education, 41 A.D.2d 966, 344 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel recission of appellant Board of Education’s resolution abolishing the position of Attendance Teacher and to restore petitioner to that position, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 14, 1972, which directed appellants “to restore the Petitioner to the position of Attendance Teacher whether it is full time or part time.” Judgment reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed on the merits, without costs. Petitioner, the holder of permanent tenure since 1964, served in the position of Attendance Teacher until June 30, 1972. The position was abolished, effective July 1, 1972, and the duties previously performed by petitioner were divided among the principals and the assistant principals in the school district. Petitioner was informed that his name would be placed on a preferred eligible list and that he would be entitled to reinstatement whenever within fqur years a vacancy in a similar position would develop. We are of the opinion that appellants’ action fully complied with sections 2510 and 2585 of the Education Law. It is clear that appellants had the authority to abolish the position of Attendance Teacher. Sections 2510 and 2585 require inter alla that when a position is abolished or when a position is consolidated with another position, without creating a new position, the person filling the position prior to the abolition or consolidation be placed upon a preferred eligible list of candidates to fill a vacancy that then exists or may thereafter occur in an office or position similar to the one which such person filled and that the persons on such preferred list shall be reinstated or appointed to such vacancies, in the order of their length of service, at any time within four years after the date of abolition or consolidation. In the case at bar the position of Attendance Teacher has been' abolished and the duties have been consolidated with those of pre-existing positions. Petitioner has been placed on the required list. There has been no attempt to create new positions or to create part time positions as was the case in Matter of Baron V. Maekreth (30 A D 2d 810, affd. 26 N Y 2d 1039). Accordingly, appellants violated no rights of petitioner. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel recission of appellant Board of Education’s resolution abolishing the position of Attendance Teacher and to restore petitioner to that position, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 14, 1972, which directed appellants “to restore the Petitioner to the position of Attendance Teacher whether it is full time or part time.” Judgment reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed on the merits, without costs. Petitioner, the holder of permanent tenure since 1964, served in the position of Attendance Teacher until June 30, 1972. The position was abolished, effective July 1, 1972, and the duties previously performed by petitioner were divided among the principals and the assistant principals in the school district. Petitioner was informed that his name would be placed on a preferred eligible list and that he would be entitled to reinstatement whenever within fqur years a vacancy in a similar position would develop. We are of the opinion that appellants’ action fully complied with sections 2510 and 2585 of the Education Law. It is clear that appellants had the authority to abolish the position of Attendance Teacher. Sections 2510 and 2585 require inter alla that when a position is abolished or when a position is consolidated with another position, without creating a new position, the person filling the position prior to the abolition or consolidation be placed upon a preferred eligible list of candidates to fill a vacancy that then exists or may thereafter occur in an office or position similar to the one which such person filled and that the persons on such preferred list shall be reinstated or appointed to such vacancies, in the order of their length of service, at any time within four years after the date of abolition or consolidation. In the case at bar the position of Attendance Teacher has been' abolished and the duties have been consolidated with those of pre-existing positions. Petitioner has been placed on the required list. There has been no attempt to create new positions or to create part time positions as was the case in Matter of Baron V. Maekreth (30 A D 2d 810, affd. 26 N Y 2d 1039). Accordingly, appellants violated no rights of petitioner. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 966, 344 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1973.