You are here: / Education-School Law
, ,

Action Seeking to Enjoin Closure of Charter School Dismissed

Plaintiffs brought an action for injunctive relief against the Board of Regents which had denied the application of plaintiff Pinnacle Charter School to renew its charter. Supreme Court had granted a preliminary injunction and dismissed one cause of action. The Fourth Department reversed the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint entirely, including the causes of action alleging a violation of due process and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act:

The first and second causes of action allege, respectively, that the determination of the Board of Regents violated Pinnacle’s due process rights under the State Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 6) and the Federal Constitution (US Const, 14th Amend, § 1). We agree with defendants that the New York Charter Schools Act (Education Law art 56) creates no constitutionally protected property interest in the renewal of a charter and thus that the first and second causes of action fail to state a cause of action… * * *

…[W]e agree with defendants that the Board of Regents was acting pursuant to its discretionary authority when it denied Pinnacle’s renewal application, and it was not required to promulgate any rules pursuant to article 2 of the State Administrative Procedure Act with respect to its exercise of such authority… .  Pinnacle Charter School, et al v Board of Regents, et al, 432, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Collective Bargaining Agreement Unambiguous—Lifetime Health Benefits Mandated

In concluding the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) unambiguously provided lifetime health insurance coverage to the petitioners pursuant to the CBA in effect upon their retirement, the Third Department wrote:

A  written agreement that is clear and complete on its face must  be  enforced  according  to the  plain meaning  of its terms  …Extrinsic evidence may  be considered to discern the  parties’ intent only  if the  contract is ambiguous,  which  is a question of law for the court to resolve…. In  determining  whether  an  ambiguity  exists, “‘[t]he court  should examine  the  entire contract and  consider the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which it was executed. Particular words  should be  considered, not as if isolated from the context, but in the light of the obligation as a whole  and the intention of the parties as manifested thereby'”… . Pursuant to the CBAs in effect at the time each petitioner retired, an employee who had completed 10 years of service was entitled to health insurance coverage  “in retirement.”    In order to receive that coverage at a rate of 100% per individual and 75% per dependent, the only requirement was that the individual “retire during the term of the contract.”    Matter of Warner, 516038, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Theories Not Included in Notice of Claim Precluded

In a slip and fall case, the First Department precluded plaintiff from asserting theories of liability not in the notice of claim:

The notice of claim limited plaintiffs’ theory of liability to negligent maintenance, upkeep and repair of the subject staircase, asserting that the infant plaintiff was caused to slip and fall due to a liquid substance on the floor and inadequate lighting. The infant plaintiff testified that he was caused to fall by “slippery juice” that was “all over the stairs.” He testified that he wasn’t able to see all of the juice due to insufficient lighting. Plaintiffs’ new theory, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, that the infant plaintiff was caused to slip and fall due to various design defects including, inter alia, treads and risers of insufficient length, an improperly placed handrail and stairs not coated with nonskid materials, is precluded… Rodriguez v Board of Educ of the City of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 04912, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed in Absence of Reasonable Excuse

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of leave to serve a late notice of claim against a school district, in the absence of a reasonable excuse:

Here …[t]he District…acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose. The District’s employee witnessed the infant petitioner’s accident, which occurred during supervised cheerleading practice, and a designated school authority prepared a medical claim form within a week after the accident…. Furthermore, the infant petitioner was transported from the school to the hospital to be treated for a broken arm…. Since the District acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioners’ claim, the petitioners met their initial burden of showing a lack of prejudice…. The District’s conclusory assertions of prejudice, based solely on the petitioners’ two-month delay in serving the notice of claim, were insufficient to rebut the petitioners’ showing….  While the petitioners’ excuses for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim were not reasonable…, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and an absence of prejudice … .  Matter of Viola v Ronkonkoma Middle Sch, 2013 NY Slip Op 04819, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

, ,

Teacher Wrongly Denied Hearing Allowed by Education Law

The Fourth Department annulled a determination which suspended a tenured teacher for 30 days without pay finding she was wrongly denied a hearing:

[Under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)] petitioner was entitled to choose whether to be disciplined under the procedures set forth in the CBA or those set forth in section [Education Law] 3020-a, which allowed petitioner to elect a hearing (see § 3020-a [c]). Respondents, however, incorrectly denied petitioner’s written request for a section 3020-a hearing. We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the petition, annul the determination, and we direct respondents to reinstate petitioner with back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of her suspension, and to remove all references to the discipline imposed from petitioner’s personnel file… .  Matter of Kilduff v Rochester City School District, 518, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed

In affirming the grant of a motion to serve a late notice of claim, the Fourth Department explained the relevant principles:

A notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues, although a court may grant leave extending that time, provided that the application therefor is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations period of one year and 90 days (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]).The decision whether to grant such leave “compels consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances,” including the “nonexhaustive list of factors” in section 50-e (5) ….The three main factors are “whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … “[T]he presence or absence of any one of the numerous relevant factors the court must consider is not determinative” …, and “[t]he court is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny the application”… .  Dalton v Akron Central Schools, 408, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, , ,

Qualified Privilege in Defamation Action Against School District Explained

In the course of a lengthy decision dealing with many issues raised by a defamation/stigma-plus proceeding brought by a school district employee against a school district, the Third Department explained qualified privilege in this context. The plaintiff was a coach whose boyfriend [Broxmeyer] had raped a student at another school.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant Arbes, principal of the high school, “stated at a meeting with several staff members that plaintiff should avoid private one-on-one  conversations with students and should take a leave of absence ‘for the safety of the students.’ “.  The Third Department wrote:

Qualified privilege provides a  complete defense to a claim of slander, and attaches to an otherwise defamatory statement “made to persons who have some common interest in the subject matter” … .  A privileged communication is one which, but for the occasion on which it is uttered, would be defamatory and actionable'”….The  defense does  not apply, however,  “where the motivation for making such statements was spite or ill will (common-law malice) or where the ‘statements [were] made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity’ … .Arbes made the statement at issue at a meeting where she, plaintiff and three other individuals were present. Plaintiff acknowledges that Keeler, the junior varsity field hockey coach and union president, had a common interest in the subject, as did a union employee who was present.  The third individual may have had the same interest because Keeler averred that the individual was a union representative. Additionally, she was a guidance counselor, and Arbes averred that guidance counselors were being made available to students who may have had difficulty dealing with the situation surrounding  Broxmeyer’s arrest, the police investigation and plaintiff’s suspension and later termination.  As all of the persons present for the meeting had a common interest in the subject matter and the record lacks any evidence of malice, Supreme Court correctly determined that Arbes’ statement at the meeting was not actionable based on the qualified privilege.  Wilcox v Newark Valley Central School District, 515906, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

No “Negligent Supervision” Cause of Action Against School Based on Student Attacking Another Student

In ruling that the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in a “negligent supervision” case should have been granted, the Third Department determined the school district could not have reasonably anticipated the attack of one student upon another.  The school personnel had been alerted to the possibility of an impending fight between the two students and had intervened.  The school personnel were assured by the student who ultimately attacked plaintiff’s daughter that she did not intend to fight plaintiff’s daughter.  The Third Department wrote:

…[A] school district will only be held liable for injuries intentionally inflicted by another  student  where  it is established that the dangerous conduct “could reasonably have been anticipated,” i.e., where school authorities had actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct on the part of the offending student ….  Even where such notice is present and the consequent duty of supervision is breached, the plaintiff must further show that the alleged injury “was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence”  … .The adequacy of supervision and the existence of proximate cause  are generally factual issues for a  jury to resolve … .

Regardless of any questions of fact regarding whether enough staff members were present in the hallway to prevent or break up the fight, defendant was entitled to summary judgment because it established that it could not have reasonably anticipated the attack.  Conklin v Saugerties Central School District, 515709, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

,

Sudden Unexpected Action by Student Did Not Support Action Based on Negligent Supervision

In determining a student’s special education aide, who was standing nearby when the 8-year-old student suddenly placed his fingers inside the hinged side of a bathroom door (thereby immediately suffering injury), could not be liable for negligent supervision, the Second Department wrote:

“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” …. “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students; therefore, schools are not to be held liable for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another” …. Moreover, “[w]here an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the . . . defendant[ ] is warranted” … .  Gilman v Oceanside Union Fee Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 03634, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

 

, , ,

Teachers’ and School Administrators’ Grievances Re Staff Cuts Stemming from School Closings Deemed Arbitrable​

The First Department determined the teachers’ and school administrators’ unions’ grievances concerning staff cuts inherent in the Department of Education’s (DOE’s) plan to close 24 underperforming schools were arbitrable, rejecting the DOE’s argument.  The arbitrator ruled the plan violated the collective bargaining agreement’s (CBA’s) requirements that staff cuts be done on the basis of seniority:

While broadly referencing educational laws and regulations, the DOE fails to identify any law that “prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided”… [“[i]t is only when the interest in maintaining adequate standards is attached to a well-defined law that public policy is implicated”]). The underlying grievance in no way impinges on the authority of the SED (State Education Department] to approve a plan for the closure or the reopening of the 24 underperforming schools as new schools under the Education law (Education Law § 2590-h). Nor can the DOE rely on its own inclusion of proposed staffing changes in its plan to close schools to support its argument that staffing issues are now a state policy, law or regulation having the effect of law, which removes them from the dispute resolution regimen provided in the CBAs. Matter of Board of Educ of the City Sch Dist of the City of NY v Mulgrew, 2013 NY Slip Op 03580, 1st Dept, 5-16-13

 

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