You are here: / / Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review D...
, ,

Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review Denial of Request for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline

The Third Department determined it has jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR Art. 78, to review the denial of a request for reconsideration of a disciplinary determination by the Director of the Office of Professional Discipline (Department of Education):

Preliminarily, we reject respondent’s assertion that our Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. Respondent relies on the fact that only review of “decisions of the board of regents” should be brought to the Appellate Division in the first instance (Education Law § 6510 [5]); all other CPLR article 78 proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court (see CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [a], [b]). Here, the Board of Regents never acted upon petitioner’s application because respondent, the Director of OPD, has discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a disciplinary determination is warranted and, only if it is, to then refer the matter to a regents review committee that submits a report to the Board of Regents for a final determination …. We have, however,  previously held that where, as here, respondent  denies an  application for reconsideration, thereby determining  that it does not warrant referral to the Board of Regents, this Court has jurisdiction to review such denial under Education Law § 6510 (5)… .  Matter of Reddy v Catone…, 514467, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD COMMITTED MURDER, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FILM ABOUT HIM WAS INTENDED TO BE FICTIONAL AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
OBJECTIONS TO A DESIGNATING PETITION WERE NOT SERVED BY CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL AS REQUIRED BY THE ELECTION LAW AND WERE NOT TIMELY SERVED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ELECTION LAW (THIRD DEPT).
​ALTHOUGH A PURPOSE OF THE WATERSHED CORPORATION WAS TO ENSURE CLEAN DRINKING WATER FOR NEW YORK CITY; OTHER PURPOSES INCLUDED FOSTERING DEVELOPMENT; THEREFORE THE UPSTATE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A CHARITABLE OR PUBLIC USE TAX EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 420-A (THIRD DEPT).
Order Not Appealable, Did Not Affect Substantial Right.
EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE EFFECT OF A DRUG MIXED WITH ALCOHOL ON DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO FORM THE INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER AND ASSAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO LAY A FOUNDATION TO QUALIFY AN EMAIL WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY AS A BUSINESS RECORD; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
Sufficient Evidence Supported Finding that Sole Shareholder, Who Did Not Oversee the Day to Day Operations of a Corporation, Was a “Responsible Person” Who Could Be Held Personally Liable for the Failure to Pay Corporate Sales and Use Taxes
Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained
Community College Retaliated Against Union for Its Advocacy

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

Failure to Object to Monthly Invoices Continuing Course of Treatment Doctrine Not Applicable