From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y. v. Ostrin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 23, 2014
120 A.D.3d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-09-23

In re BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Steven OSTRIN, Respondent–Respondent.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Oriana Vigliotti of counsel), for respondent.


Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Oriana Vigliotti of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 16, 2012, denying the petition, which sought to modify the penalty imposed in an arbitration award, dated December 27, 2010, granting respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition and confirm the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Hearing Officer's determination to suspend respondent teacher for one-half year without pay, rather than terminate him, was rational and supported by the evidence ( see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v. McGraham, 75 A.D.3d 445, 452–453, 905 N.Y.S.2d 86 [1st Dept.2010], affd.17 N.Y.3d 917, 934 N.Y.S.2d 768, 958 N.E.2d 897 [2011] ). There is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's findings that respondent did not commit sexual misconduct on the date in question, and that he did not engage in a pattern of misconduct warranting the penalty of dismissal. The Hearing Officer made clear that the case turned entirely on the credibility of the witnesses, and such determinations “are largely unreviewable” (Lackow v Department of Educ. (or “Board”) of City of N.Y., 51 A.D.3d 563, 568, 859 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept.2008]; see also McGraham, 75 A.D.3d at 452, 905 N.Y.S.2d 86). Further, the imposed penalty does not violate public policy ( see McGraham, 75 A.D.3d at 450, 905 N.Y.S.2d 86).

We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing. MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SAXE, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y. v. Ostrin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 23, 2014
120 A.D.3d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y. v. Ostrin

Case Details

Full title:In re BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 23, 2014

Citations

120 A.D.3d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 6249
992 N.Y.S.2d 401