You are here: / / Full-Time Employment, No Matter How It Is Labeled, Counted Toward Teacher...
,

Full-Time Employment, No Matter How It Is Labeled, Counted Toward Teacher Seniority.

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, the Fourth Department determined that a teacher, for seniority purposes, deserved credit for the entire period during which she taught full-time, no matter how the type of employment was labeled (per diem, substitute, probationary, etc.). Although the teacher technically was asked to “resign” until she passed a particular exam, the fact that she continued to work full-time under in a different employee-category was determinative.  Matter of Alessi vs Board of Education, Wilson School District, et al, 1380, CA 12-0119 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences Valid
BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE THE SAME BLOCKBURGER TEST FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE 2022 CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING MAP FAVORED DEMOCRATS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER’S ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO FATHER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN FATHER’S ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
WHEN DEFENDANT BECAME DISRUPTIVE JUST BEFORE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE BROUGHT IN THE JUDGE HAD HIM REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT FIRST WARNING HIM AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Permission to Re-Submit Charges to a Second Grand Jury Was Required. Court Did Not Have Power to Amend Child Support, Maintenance Judgment.