Opinion
8410 Index 651855/17
02-14-2019
In re Eileen GHASTIN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent–Respondent.
Eileen Ghastin, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Eileen Ghastin, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
There is no basis to disturb the hearing officer's credibility determinations that during the May 17, 2016 incident, petitioner violated Chancellor's Regulation A–421 by cursing at a student and threatening to kill him while other students were present. Indeed, respondent's witnesses gave interlocking and closely corroborating testimony establishing her statements. The fact that the hearing officer found their testimony more credible than petitioner's is not a basis to find that his determinations were arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Brito v. Walcott, 115 A.D.3d 544, 545, 982 N.Y.S.2d 105 [1st Dept. 2014] ). In addition, petitioner made no showing as to how a four-week suspension without pay is so shockingly disproportionate to the offense that it constitutes an abuse of discretion given her proven misconduct which could have resulted in violence (see Matter of Brizel v. City of New York, 161 A.D.3d 634, 635, 78 N.Y.S.3d 342 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
Although petitioner had about 19 years of service at the time of the hearing with no known disciplinary record before the incident, the record shows that she failed to acknowledge the gravity of her misconduct, continued to deny any wrongdoing and showed a lack of remorse for her actions (see Matter of Haas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 106 A.D.3d 620, 621, 966 N.Y.S.2d 397 [1st Dept. 2013] ). She also failed to present clear and convincing proof that the hearing officer was biased against her (see Batyreva v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 95 A.D.3d 792, 792, 946 N.Y.S.2d 856 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
We further find that petitioner has waived the issue of whether the hearing officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter because she did not raise the issue during the arbitration (see Matter of DeMartino v . New York City Dept. of Transp., 67 A.D.3d 479, 479, 890 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1st Dept. 2009] ). That she raised the issue in her petition to the Supreme Court is of no moment.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.