You are here: / / DENIAL OF TEACHER’S APPEAL OF UNSATISFACTORY RATING ANNULLED. 

DENIAL OF TEACHER’S APPEAL OF UNSATISFACTORY RATING ANNULLED. 

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, annulled a determination denying the petitioner-teacher's appeal of an unsatisfactory performance rating:

The record demonstrates deficiencies in the performance review process resulting in petitioner's unsatisfactory rating (U-Rating) for the 2012-2013 school year that were not merely technical but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process … . Petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to improve her performance, and the observation reports did not suffice to alert her that her year-end rating was at risk.

Petitioner's account of the post-observation conference … , where the principal allegedly focused on the Annual Review, rather than perceived flaws in petitioner's lesson, was not refuted at the hearing and, when viewed alongside the other evidence presented, raises a factual issue as to whether the principal engineered the U-Rating to force petitioner from her job for refusing to go along with her policy of steering children into special education classes despite parental wishes to the contrary. Matter of Taylor v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03454, 1st Dept 5-3-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (DENIAL OF APPEAL OF UNSATISFACTORY RATING OF TEACHER ANNULLED)/TEACHERS (DENIAL OF APPEAL OF UNSATISFACTORY RATING OF TEACHER ANNULLED)

You might also like
EVEN WHERE EVIDENCE OF AN UNCHARGED CRIME IS “INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED” WITH THE NARRATIVE OF CHARGED CRIME, IT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT A PRIOR UNCHARGED SEX ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.
IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT DISPLACED THE BUILDING OWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FAILING TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONDITION SAFER DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment
THE HOMEOWNERS EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-CAUSING WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CASE; THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED AS A “MEANS AND METHODS OF WORK” ACTION, NOT A “CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION” ACTION; THE HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST DEPT).
HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO 50% OF THE APPRECIATION OF WIFE’S SEPARATE PROPERTY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Whether the “Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Pertained to an Arson Is a Question of Fact Which Depends Upon the Motives of the Arsonist

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PENAL LAW PROVIDES A STATUTORY BASIS FOR PROSECUTING PHYSICIANS WHO PROVIDE... MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PR...