You are here: / Education-School Law
,

Request to File Late Notice of Claim Granted in Absence of Good Reason for Delay

Over a dissent, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff to file a late notice of claim, in the absence of a good reason for the delay. The infant plaintiff was a student who injured her finger in a door at school:

The plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter (see Education Law § 3813[2-a]; General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…). “In order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the public corporation must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves” … .

Before the infant plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance, her teacher told her that he would give her a dollar for every stitch she had, and he later called the infant plaintiff’s home to inquire about her. During that telephone call, the teacher and the infant plaintiff’s mother allegedly discussed a door at the school… Additionally, the school nurse completed a medical claim form, detailing the accident, the injury, and the treatment provided. Under these circumstances, the defendant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … .

Furthermore, the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the plaintiffs’ delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, in light of the teacher’s involvement in the incident and the nurse’s documentation of the accident and injuries … . “[T]he absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of . . . leave to serve a late notice of claim where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice” … . Claud v West Babylon Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 06339, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

, ,

No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care of Child Who Died After Suffering an Allergic Reaction in School

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Eng, the Second Department determined the action brought on behalf of a child who died in school after suffering an allergic reaction was correctly dismissed with respect to the Department of Education (DOE) and should have been dismissed with respect to the school and the attending nurse who was tasked with monitoring the child at school.  The lengthy opinion deals in depth with many topics including:  the DOE’s duty, the school’s duty, the nurse’s duty, the finding that the nurse was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, and the proximate cause issue raised by the inability to determine what caused the allergic reaction.  The child was autistic and suffered from asthma and numerous severe allergies.  The DOE developed a plan (Individualized Education Program) which involved placement of the child in a private school equipped to care for children with special needs and the provision of a nurse who was with the child continuously during the school day.  The Second Department treated all the issues (including the adequacy of the medical care provided by the nurse) exhaustively and determined no questions of fact had been raised about the negligence of any of the defendants. Begley v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05867, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Reinstatement of Charge Against Teacher After Dismissal of Charge in Arbitration Proper; Interlocutory Ruling by Arbitrator was “Final” in Effect/Courts Can Impose Higher Level of Scrutiny when Arbitration Mandated by Statute

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s reinstatement of a charge against a teacher (Hogan) which had been dismissed by the arbitrator. The Second Department explained the criteria for court review of an interlocutory ruling of an arbitrator, noting that more scrutiny is appropriate in an arbitration mandated by statute:

Initially, we reject Hogan’s contention that the petition should have been dismissed because courts do not have the authority to review an interlocutory award dismissing one of the charges in an arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law 3020-a. As a general rule, a court lacks authority to entertain a petition to review an interlocutory ruling of an arbitrator on a procedural matter … . Here, however, the award sought to be reviewed is not one which involves “only a very limited procedural question” … . Rather, the award dismissed the most serious disciplinary charge preferred against Hogan, and the only one of the three charges which alleged that he was guilty of misconduct. The award is final as to that charge, and, if allowed to stand, would prevent the District from adducing evidence in support of the alleged misconduct at the hearing. Under these circumstances, the award dismissing Charge No. 1 can be viewed as a final determination subject to review under CPLR 7511 … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly granted the District’s petition and reinstated Charge No. 1 against Hogan. Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through statutory mandate (see Education Law § 3020-a), the arbitrator’s determination is subject to closer judicial scrutiny than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted voluntarily … . The award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Board of Educ of Hauppauge Union Free Sch Dist v Hogan, 2013 NY Slip Op 05816, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Teacher Had Not Acquired “Tenure by Estoppel”

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a teacher had not acquired tenure by estoppel:

“In general, estoppel is a bar which precludes a party from denying [that] a certain fact or state of facts exists to the detriment of another party who was entitled to rely on such facts and had acted accordingly” … . “Tenure may be acquired by estoppel when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term” … . Although Education Law § 3012(1) provides that certain teachers shall be appointed “for a probationary period of three years,” it “does not contain a provision which would prevent a probationary teacher from knowingly and voluntarily waiving the three-year probationary period” … .

Here, as indicated by the petitioner’s own letter to the principal, the petitioner agreed to extend his probationary period for an additional year. Consequently, the petitioner’s probationary period had not expired when the School District terminated his employment and, thus, he had not acquired a tenured position by estoppel.  Matter of Chishom v Hochman, 2013 NY slip Op 05818, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Student Who Had Been Expelled Could Bring Plenary Complaint Against School, in Addition to an Article 78 Proceeding

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined that a dental student who had been expelled in a disciplinary action could bring both an article 78 proceeding and a plenary action for damages against the school. The court went through each cause of action in the complaint and allowed a few, including sex discrimination claims, to go forward. (In a previous appeal the article 78 petition re: the expulsion had been granted, finding that expulsion was too severe a penalty.):

“Judicial review of an academic institution’s disciplinary determinations is limited to whether it substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines and whether the determinations are based on a rational interpretation of the relevant evidence” … . Thus, to the extent plaintiff’s causes of action are, in essence, a challenge to the determination to expel her, she was only entitled to article 78 review …, and the filing of the article 78 proceeding mandated the dismissal of the plenary action insofar as it raised such claims … . Conversely, to the extent the gravamen of plaintiff’s causes of action is not a challenge to the decision to expel her and is not duplicative of the petition’s allegations, she is not limited to article 78 review and may seek damages in a plenary action … . Kickertz v New York Univ, 2013 NY Slip Op 05781, 1st Dept 9-10-13

 

, , ,

Death Threats Not Protected Under First Amendment; Hearsay May Be Basis of Administrative Determination

In affirming the arbitrator’s recommendation a teacher should be terminated for making death threats against an arbitrator in a prior disciplinary proceeding, the First Department noted that hearsay can be the basis for an administrative determination and explained the threats were not protected by the First Amendment:

We reject petitioner’s allegations that the instant disciplinary proceeding and the ultimate discipline imposed against him violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Supreme Court properly deferred to the arbitrator’s finding that petitioner’s statements are exempt from First Amendment protection because they constitute “true threats.” We note that petitioner’s former attorney only disclosed the threats because he believed that petitioner’s increasingly erratic behavior rendered him genuinely dangerous. Under the circumstances, it cannot be argued that petitioner’s speech implicates matters of public concern … . Nor can it be disputed that petitioner’s death threats disrupted the initial arbitration proceeding… . Matter of Smith v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2013 NY Slip Op 05765, 1st Dept 9-3-13

 

, , ,

School District Did Not Owe Special Duty to Plaintiff Injured in Fight After Hours on School Grounds; Failure to Lock Gate Not Proximate Cause of Injury

Plaintiff was assaulted on an athletic filed owned by defendant school district while in a group which was on the field without permission at 9:30 pm. The plaintiff alleged the school district was negligent in not providing security and in not locking the gates to the field. The Second Department determined the school district owed no special duty to the plaintiff and the failure to lock the gates was not the proximate cause of the injury:

The “provision of security against physical attacks by third parties . . . is a governmental function . . . and . . . no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” … . This special duty arises when a municipality assumes an affirmative duty to act on behalf of a specific party, and that party justifiably relies on the direct assurances of the municipality’s agents … .

… The mere provision of security does not give rise to a special duty of protection …. The District established that it did not make direct assurances regarding security to the infant plaintiff and that he did not rely on the provision of security in deciding to congregate with others on the field. * * *

A public entity may not escape liability for negligent acts which it performs in a proprietary capacity and which are a proximate cause of an injury which was sustained as the result of a foreseeable act by a third party … . However, the District demonstrated, prima facie, that the failure to lock the gates accessing the field was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries, since the assault here was not a foreseeable act. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Weisbecker v West Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY slip Op 05743, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

, , ,

Although Arbitrator in Statutorily-Required Arbitration Proceeding Properly Found Teacher Engaged in Misconduct, Teacher’s Actions Were Protected by First Amendment

Teachers demonstrated in front of a school while negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were on-going.  On a rainy day, some teachers parked their cars in front of the school, displaying signs inside the cars.  Because the teachers were parked where children are usually dropped off by their parents, children were being dropped off in the street. The board of education brought a disciplinary charge against petitioner pursuant to Education Law 3020-a alleging the creation of a health and safety risk.  The matter went to statutorily-required arbitration and the arbitrator found the petitioner had created a health and safety risk.  Petitioner challenged the ruling in this Article 78 proceeding. The Second Department explained the court’s role in reviewing a statutorily-required arbitration, found that the arbitrator’s ruling was supported by the evidence, but determined petitioner’s activity was protected by the First Amendment:

Where, as here, arbitration is statutorily required, “judicial review under CPLR article 75 is broad, requiring that the award be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence in the record” … . “The award must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78” … . “Due process of law requires . . . that the [arbitrator’s determination] under the power conferred by statute have a basis not only in his good faith, but in law and the record before him [or her]” … . … In this proceeding… the evidence at the hearing provided a rational basis for the arbitrator’s decision, and the award was not arbitrary and capricious … .Nonetheless, we hold …that the petition should have been granted. The petitioner’s expressive activity regarding collective bargaining issues indisputably addressed matters of public concern …, and the District failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the petitioner’s exercise of her First Amendment rights so threatened the school’s effective operation as to justify the imposition of discipline… .  Matter of Lucia v Board of Educ of E Meadow Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 05633, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

, ,

Teacher’s Unsatisfactory Performance Evaluation Annulled—No Supporting Documentation

In an Article 78 proceeding, the First Department reversed the Board of Education’s denial of a teacher’s petition to annul an unsatisfactory performance evaluation because there was no longer any documentation substantiating any instances of corporal punishment in the teacher’s file.  Disciplinary letters concerning allegations of corporal punishment had previously been removed from the teacher’s file by stipulation.  The First Department explained the relevant rules as follows:

It is undisputed that Part 2(I) of DOE’s Human Resources Handbook “Rating Pedagogical Staff Members” provides (1) that a teacher’s evaluation must be supported by documentation in his/her personnel file; (2) that documentation removed from a file through grievance procedures is inadmissible in performance reviews; and (3) that documentation not addressed directly to a teacher is inadmissible in performance reviews, unless it is attached to and part of another document appropriately placed in the teacher’s file. Moreover, materials placed in a teacher’s personnel file must include a signature and date line for the teacher, evidencing that she has read the material and understands that it will be placed in the file, as well as a signature and date line for a witness; unsigned documents are inadmissible in evaluation reviews.  Matter of Friedman v Board of Educ of the City Sch Dist of the City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05598, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

, , , ,

Application for Certification as NYC School Bus Driver Should Have Been Denied Because of Past Drug Convictions

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s order that petitioner, who had been convicted of two drug offenses (felonies) in the past, be certified as a NYC Department of Education school bus driver.  The First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

Where the applicant seeks employment with the New York City Department of Education, the School Chancellor’s regulations apply and Regulation C-105 establishes procedures to be followed …for background investigations of pedagogical and administrative applicants. Regulation C-105 incorporates by reference article 23-A of the Correction Law. Correction Law § 752 (et seq.) prohibits unfair discrimination against a person previously convicted of a crime “unless: (1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual; or (2) the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals.” Correction Law § 753(a) – (h), which set forth eight factors a public agency must consider in connection with an application for a license, include the person’s duties and responsibilities, the bearing, if any, the criminal offense(s) will have on the person’s “fitness or ability” to perform his or her duties, the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the crime(s), the seriousness of the crime, information about the applicant’s reputation, etc., and the legitimate interest of the agency in protecting the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public. Regulation C-105 provides further that in reviewing the record of an applicant who has a prior criminal conviction, DOE is particularly concerned with offenses, among others, that involve the possession, distribution or selling of controlled substances.

The Chancellor’s Regulation, like the Corrections Law, provides that where the applicant has a certificate of relief from disabilities, that certificate “shall” also be considered (Correction Law § 753[3]). The certificate, however, only creates a “presumption of rehabilitation” with respect to the crime the individual was convicted of, it does not create a prima facie entitlement to the license the person is applying for… .  Matter of Dempsey v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 05289, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

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