Opinion
2015-10-15
Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondents.
Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondents.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent New York City Department of Education's (DOE) cross motion to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondent's determination to terminate petitioner's probationary employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court correctly determined that DOE did not violate the law or act in bad faith in terminating petitioner, a probationary teacher ( see Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649, 505 N.Y.S.2d 64, 496 N.E.2d 223 [1986]; see also Medina v. Sielaff, 182 A.D.2d 424, 427, 582 N.Y.S.2d 685 [1st Dept.1992] ). Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to support her contention that her dismissal was due to bad faith or racial animus ( see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v. Kelly, 28 A.D.3d 320, 812 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept.2006] ). The evidence shows that petitioner's employment was terminated based on two classroom observations. Under these circumstances, the IAS court's annulment of petitioner's “U-rating,” and DOE's failure to provide a mentor, are insufficient to show bad faith ( see Matter of Brown v. Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 89 A.D.3d 486, 487–488, 932 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1st Dept.2011] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.