From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Board of Educ. v. Nyquist

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 28, 1978
385 N.E.2d 628 (N.Y. 1978)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Oneida, as here, it was argued that a teacher may not obtain tenure unless that teacher has served a full probationary period, and that the probationary period cannot commence until there is a formal appointment by the school board, despite any prior period of actual service in the same period.

Summary of this case from Ricca v. Board of Educ
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

Argued October 17, 1978

Decided November 28, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, JOHN T. CASEY, J.

James H. Whitney, Robert D. Stone, Lawrence W. Reich and Norman H. Gross, for Ewald B. Nyquist, as Commissioner of Education, appellant.

Gerard John De Wolf and Bernard F. Ashe for Mary Lou Durr, appellant.

Robert F. McDermott for respondent.

Order reversed, with costs, and the determination of the commissioner reinstated on the dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice LOUIS M. GREENBLOTT at the Appellate Division ( 59 A.D.2d 79-81).

Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE.

Summaries of

Matter of Board of Educ. v. Nyquist

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 28, 1978
385 N.E.2d 628 (N.Y. 1978)

In Oneida, as here, it was argued that a teacher may not obtain tenure unless that teacher has served a full probationary period, and that the probationary period cannot commence until there is a formal appointment by the school board, despite any prior period of actual service in the same period.

Summary of this case from Ricca v. Board of Educ

In Oneida, the critical factor supporting this court's holding was that the teaching position created by Federal funding was continued by the board of education as soon as funding became available and the same teaching position remained filled by the same teacher. It is this fact, namely the continuity of this regular teaching position, albeit one which was initially dependent on Federal funding, which was the basis of our holding.

Summary of this case from Ricca v. Board of Educ

In Matter of Board of Educ. v. Nyquist (45 N.Y.2d 975, revg 59 A.D.2d 76 on the dissenting opn at the App. Div.), it was held that a school teacher hired under CETA's predecessor statute, the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 (formerly US Code, tit 42, § 4871 et seq.; US Code, tit 29, § 841 et seq.) would be deemed to be an employee of the supervising agency, the board of education.

Summary of this case from Nassau Chapter v. Cty. of Nassau
Case details for

Matter of Board of Educ. v. Nyquist

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 28, 1978

Citations

385 N.E.2d 628 (N.Y. 1978)
385 N.E.2d 628
412 N.Y.S.2d 891

Citing Cases

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The questions presented are whether those working by virtue of the CETA program were employees of the county…

Matter of Feinerman v. Boces

We begin our analysis by recognizing that the Education Law provides that "teachers and all other members of…

13 Citing Cases