You are here: / / THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED...
, , ,

THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED CREDITS TO INCREASE GRADUATION RATES; THE CHARGES REQUIRED INTENTIONAL CONDUCT; THE HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED THE PRINCIPAL DID NOT ACT INTENTIONALLY BUT WAS GUILTY OF THE CHARGES; THE INCONSISTENCY RENDERED THE RULING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the hearing officer’s ruling terminating petitioner’s employment as a high school principal, determined the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner did not act intentionally was inconsistent with finding petitioner guilty of any of the charges. Petitioner allegedly gave unauthorized credits to students in an effort to increase graduation rates:

… [T]he hearing officer’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the petitioner acted intentionally is inconsistent with a finding that the petitioner was guilty of any of the charges. Each of the 41 charges against the petitioner alleged that she knowingly and willfully approved the conferral of credits with full knowledge that such credit was unlawful, as part of an intentional scheme to accelerate credit acquisition in order to artificially inflate graduation rates. Because there was no allegation that the petitioner’s conduct was anything other than knowing and intentional, and because the hearing officer found that there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner acted intentionally, the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner was guilty of all charges was arbitrary and capricious and without evidentiary support. At the hearing, the petitioner admitted to conduct that was, at most, negligent. There was no evidence to contradict the petitioner’s testimony that she did not act intentionally. Matter of Simpson v Poughkeepsie City Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 03730, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: The high school principal was charged with giving students unauthorized credits to increase graduation rates. All the charges alleged intentional conduct. The hearing officer (correctly) found the principal did not act intentionally, but sustained the charges and terminated her employment. The inconsistency rendered the hearing officer’s ruling in the arbitration arbitrary and capricious.

 

You might also like
Statutory Requirements for Recovery and Limits Imposed by Subrogation Explained; ”Law of the Case” Doctrine in Appellate Context Explained
THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL DID NOT IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS ON RETRIAL WHICH WERE IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Father Demonstrated His Loss of Employment Justified a Downward Modification of Child Support
STATEMENT MADE BY BANK EMPLOYEE TO THE EFFECT THE BANK WAS CLOSING THE ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT MONEY LAUNDERING WAS NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DEFAMATION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH BATSON INQUIRIES FOR THREE BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS; BASED ON THE JUDGE’S REMARKS THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND REPORT BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS BUT NOT CITY OWNED TREE WELLS, UNLESS THEY AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, NEGLIGENTLY REPAIR THE AREA, OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY A SPECIAL USE; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WELL, NOT THE SIDEWALK, AND NONE OF THE OTHER LIABILITY THEORIES APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A INJURY... DEFENDANT TOOK A KEY, GOT IN A U-HAUL VAN, SAT FOR TWO MINUTES AND GOT OUT OF...