You are here: / Education-School Law
, ,

PROPOSED 2019 ELECTION REFERENDUM REGARDING PUBLIC EDUCATION OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER IS IMPERMISSIBLY ADVISORY AND WAS PROPERLY DECLARED VOID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the proposed 2019 referendum on amendments to City of Rochester Local Laws regarding the Board of Education, Commissioners and the salaries of School Board Members was impermissibly advisory:

Any local law that “[a]bolishes an elective office” or “reduces the salary of an elective officer during his [or her] term of office” is subject to mandatory referendum (Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 [2] [e]), but an “advisory” referendum—i.e., one that lacks legal effect or consequence—is not permitted in the absence of express constitutional or statutory authority for it … .

Contrary to respondents’ contention, we conclude, for two independent reasons, that the referendum on the Local Law is impermissibly advisory and, thus, that the court properly declared the Local Law invalid and the referendum void. First, the language of section 5 of the Local Law, which conditions its effectiveness on subsequent action by the New York State Legislature, strips the referendum of any binding legal effect (…see … Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 [1]). Second, as the court correctly noted, a local government may not legislate in areas “where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field” … , and it is well established that the State has preempted local action in the field of public education … . Matter of Rochester City Sch. Dist. v City of Rochester, 2019 NY Slip Op 06449, Fourth Dept 9-4-19

 

, , ,

ARBITRATION AWARD TERMINATING SCHOOL PRINCIPAL FOR ALCOHOL ABUSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the arbitration award which terminated petitioner’s employment as a school principal for alcohol abuse. The school district had entered a “last chance” agreement with petitioner, which, the Fourth Department held, was not rendered unenforceable by the district’s commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. The court explained the criteria applied to review of arbitration awards:

Education Law § 3020-a (5) permits judicial review of a hearing officer’s decision but expressly provides that “the court’s review shall be limited to grounds set forth in” CPLR 7511. “An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . Where, as here, the parties are “subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny—it must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious’ ” … , and “it must be in accord with due process” … . Here, petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that the conduct findings were invalid … . Indeed, the record establishes that those findings were rational, had evidentiary support, and were not arbitrary and capricious, impermissibly based on uncharged conduct, or otherwise improper … . Matter of Bender (Lancaster Cent. Sch. Dist.), 2019 NY Slip Op 06297, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, , , , ,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD HOUSED FOR MORE THAN FIVE WEEKS IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM BECAUSE NO APPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WAS AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, considering the appeal under an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined a 16-year-old developmentally disabled child (Olivia) did not have a private right of action against Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (CVPH), the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) or the Department of Health (DOH) for housing her in the CVPH emergency room when no appropriate residential facility was available. The opinion is too comprehensive and covers too many substantive issues to be fairly summarized here:

In 2018, Olivia CC. (hereinafter the child), a minor with complex developmental disabilities, was stranded in the emergency room of respondent Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (hereinafter CVPH) for more than five weeks while she waited for a residential school placement. The child was not in need of medical or psychiatric care. However, neither her family nor the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (hereinafter OPWDD) — the agency legislatively charged with protecting the welfare of persons with developmental disabilities — could provide her with safe interim housing. CVPH thus retained the child in the emergency room, where she could not attend school, participate in community activities or go outdoors, and CVPH was forced to use scarce medical resources to provide for her nonmedical needs. Unfortunately, the child is not the first minor with special needs to be marooned for weeks or months in an emergency room, as hospitals find themselves serving as the last resort for providing shelter to children in crisis … . The difficult legal issues presented here call into question the extent of the responsibilities of the legislative and administrative functions of government to some of our society’s most vulnerable members, and the limitations on the power of courts to protect them. * * *

Our conclusion that the amended petition/complaint provides this Court with no grounds to intervene in respondents’ operations should not be misunderstood as condonation of the child’s prolonged and unnecessary hospitalization or of respondents’ failure to provide her with appropriate assistance. Nevertheless, this record does not permit a determination of the propriety of constitutional or equitable relief, and relief grounded in the statutory provisions relied upon here must come from the Legislature or from respondents’ policy choices. Thus, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s judgment. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney, 2019 NY Slip Op 06119, Third Dept 8-8-19

 

, , ,

FIBER OPTIC CABLES AND ENCLOSURES ARE TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the fiber optic cables and equipment at issue constitute taxable property under RPTL 102, in that the statutory exception for radio and television signals was not demonstrated to be applicable:

…  [T]ax exclusions are never presumed or preferred and before [a] petitioner may have the benefit of them, the burden rests on it to establish that the item comes within the language of the exclusion.’ Moreover, a statute authorizing a tax exemption will be construed against the taxpayer unless the taxpayer identifies a provision of law plainly creating the exemption . . . Thus, the taxpayer’s interpretation of the statute must not simply be plausible, it must be the only reasonable construction’ ” … . …

… [P]etitioners contend that their fiber optic installations are not taxable property pursuant to RPTL 102 (12) (i) (D) because, inter alia, petitioners use those properties to some unspecified extent to transmit “news or entertainment radio, television or cable television signals for immediate, delayed or ultimate exhibition to the public” … . We reject that contention. In light of petitioners’ failure to establish the percentage of their fiber optic installations that are used for those purposes, we may accept their contention only if we conclude that any such usage of fiber optic installations, no matter how slight, is sufficient to exclude the properties from the tax. That is not ” the only reasonable construction’ ” of the statute … , indeed, it is “simply [not plausible” … . If we accept that interpretation, based on the proliferation of uses of cell phones to stream video, television, and other programming, all fiber optic cables will be excluded from taxation. That, however, conflicts with the Court of Appeals’ determination in T-Mobile Northeast, LLC that such property is taxable (32 NY3d at 608). Moreover, RPTL 102 (12) (i) provides that taxable property includes all “wires, poles, supports and inclosures for electrical conductors upon, above and underground used in connection with the transmission or switching of electromagnetic voice, video and data signals between different entities.” Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Erie County, 2019 NY Slip Op 05913, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION WAS VALID BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; IN ADDITION, ANY DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION WERE WAIVED BY RESPONDENTS; PRIOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO THE PETITION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATION LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verification of an Article 78 petition by petitioner’s attorney was valid because the attorney had first hand knowledge of the contents and, even if the verification was invalid, the respondent had waived any objection to it. The matter concerns the suspension of a school principal which had been the subject of arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitration was not an obstacle to these proceedings brought pursuant to the Education Law because the issues are not the same.  The issue involved in the Article 78 petition, an interpretation of Education Law 2566 (6), was not the kind of issue which must first be brought before the Commissioner of Education:

Although the verification requirement of CPLR 7804 (d) must ordinarily be completed by a party, a verification “may be made by [a party’s] attorney [where, as here,] all the material allegations of the pleading are within the personal knowledge of . . . [that] attorney’ ” …  Moreover, a party challenging the sufficiency of a verification is required “to give notice with due diligence to the attorney of the adverse party that he [or she] elect[ed]’ to treat the petition as a nullity” … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the verification by petitioner’s attorney was insufficient, we conclude that respondents waived any challenge to the petition on that ground by failing to make the requisite diligent efforts and instead waiting a month before seeking dismissal of the petition on that basis … . …

… .[A]lthough Education Law § 310 provides … that any party aggrieved by an official act or decision of school authorities “may appeal by petition to the [C]ommissioner of [E]ducation,” the Commissioner exercises primary jurisdiction only where the matter involves an issue requiring his or her specialized knowledge and expertise … . Petitioner’s contention regarding section 2566, however, requires no more than the interpretation and application of the plain language of that statute for which no deference to the Department of Education is required … . Matter of Buffalo Council of Supervisors & Adm’rs, Local #10 v Cash, 2019 NY Slip Op 05895, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant day care center’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while in the care of the day care center. The facts were not described:

The defendant, as a provider of day care services, was under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “A plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred. [The p]laintiff’s burden of proof on this issue is satisfied if the possibility of another explanation for the event is sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff’s injuries were not proximately caused by its negligence. The defendant’s submissions failed to negate a reasonable inference that the injury occurred at the defendant’s day care center and that the defendant failed to provide adequate supervision … . A.D.G. v Children’s Ark Daycare Ctr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05959, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS STUDENT-PUSHES-STUDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision, student-pushed-by-student, case should have been granted. Negligent supervision was not the proximate cause of the injury:

… [T]he infant plaintiff, a kindergarten student at a school in the defendant … School District … , allegedly was injured when she was pushed into a wall by a fellow kindergarten student while they were lining up outside their classroom before the afternoon session. …

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . However, where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of a defendant charged with the duty of reasonable supervision is warranted … .

Here, the School District established, prima facie, that the incident occurred in so short a period of time that any negligent supervision on its part was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s alleged injuries … . M.P. v Central Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 05553, Second Dept 7-10-19

third party assault

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER, A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER WHO SLAPPED AN UNRULY STUDENT, TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined substantial evidence supported the guilty findings on three disciplinary charges against petitioner, a driver of a school bus for special needs children. Petitioner had slapped a nine-year-old student who had become unruly. However, the majority determined the termination of the petitioner, a long-time employee with an unblemished record, was too severe a penalty. The two dissenters argued termination was appropriate:

… [I]n light of petitioner’s otherwise unblemished disciplinary record during her 20 years as a school bus driver, including five years driving special needs students, we conclude that termination, absent any other previous progressive disciplinary steps, is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock one’s sense of fairness  … . Although we are mindful of our limited role in evaluating the discipline imposed here … , we nevertheless conclude that the circumstances of this unfortunate occurrence, viewed in the specific context of petitioner’s background, establish that the harsh penalty of termination was disproportionate and shocking to our sense of fairness. Petitioner was confronted by a student who, due to his special needs, lost control of his behavior and was significantly disrupting the other students on the bus, some of whom were also struggling to behave. Petitioner’s was not premeditated and, under these circumstances, appears to be the result of a momentary lapse of judgment. There is nothing in petitioner’s employment history to suggest that she will ever engage in similar conduct again.

Although termination in these circumstances shocks our sense of fairness, we do not condone petitioner’s behavior, and only conclude that some form of discipline short of termination would be appropriate. We therefore modify the determination by granting the petition in part and vacating the penalty imposed, and we remit the matter to respondent for the imposition of an appropriate penalty less severe than termination … . Matter of Ansley v Jamesville-DeWitt Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 05439, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

,

PRIVATE COLLEGE DID NOT ADHERE TO ITS PUBLISHED RULES AND GUIDELINES AND FAILED TO INFORM PETITIONER-STUDENT OF HIS RIGHT TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO HIS ACCUSER, DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT POLICY ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Supreme Court, determined petitioner-student was not afforded his due process rights in proceedings brought by a private college (Hamilton) stemming from allegations petitioner had violated the college’s sexual misconduct policy (Policy). Petitioner was not informed of his right to submit questions to his accuser:

Here, the parties agree that respondents did not have to afford petitioner a hearing under either Education Law § 6444 (5) (b) (ii) or the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The parties further agree that petitioner did not have a right to confront or cross-examine witnesses against him … . Nevertheless, the College was required to ensure that its published rules were “substantially observed”… . This the College did not do.

At oral argument on the petition in Supreme Court and in their brief on appeal, respondents asserted that the Policy permits accused students to ask questions of accusers or witnesses in writing. …

Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to ask questions of an accuser or witness is a significant and critical right (see generally Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 295 [1973]), we conclude that respondents’ failure to inform petitioner that he had such a right establishes that they did not substantially adhere to the College’s own published rules and guidelines requiring them to inform petitioner, i.e., the “individual whose conduct is alleged to have violated th[e] Policy,” of all of the campus judicial rules and procedures. We therefore reverse the judgment, reinstate the petition, grant the petition, annul the determinations that petitioner violated the College’s Policy and direct respondents to adhere to the College’s published rules and guidelines in any future proceeding against petitioner related to the incident reports. Matter of A.E. v Hamilton Coll., 2019 NY Slip Op 04833, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH COVERED PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD NOT BE SUED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE INSURER CUT OFF BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff, a security guard for the School District who was injured on the job, did not have a cause of action against District based upon the long-term disability insurer’s (Sun Life’s) decision to terminate her disability benefits. The District was not a party to the contract between Sun Life and the policyholder. Although the Summary Plan Description issued by Sun Life’s predecessor mentioned the insured rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the District was not obligated by the Summary-Plan language:

… [T]he plaintiff contends that, based on the language of portions of the Summary Plan Description, the District subjected itself to ERISA’s statutory scheme governing appeals from denials of claims. …

An insurance policy is a contract to which standard provisions of contract interpretation apply … . “Liability for breach of contract does not lie absent proof of a contractual relationship or privity between the parties”… . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, the District was not a party to the long-term disability policy issued by Sun Life to a different named policyholder. Even assuming the authenticity of the Summary Plan Description excerpts relied upon by the plaintiff, nothing in the record reflects that the District authored, published, or agreed to be bound by the Summary Plan Description, which, by its terms, did not form part of the insurance policy. Nor do the terms of the insurance policy incorporate the provisions of ERISA … . Arroyo v Central Islip UFSD, 2019 NY Slip Op 04669, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

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