From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sperling v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 1989
150 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 15, 1989


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, the respondent Board of Education adopted the findings of its Hearing Panel that the petitioner, a tenured elementary school teacher, was guilty of two charges of misconduct. The misconduct occurred on March 18, 1986, when the petitioner requested that one of her students leave the classroom on a personal errand for her in violation of school policy to call the student's mother to arrange a meeting between the mother and the petitioner. When the student's mother arrived at the school, the petitioner absented herself from the class and discussed with the mother how a traffic ticket issued to the petitioner's husband by the mother's husband could be "eliminated". We find that the respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the charges preferred against her were sufficiently clear to apprise her of the reasons for the hearing and to enable her to prepare a proper defense (see, Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ., 50 A.D.2d 149, appeal dismissed 39 N.Y.2d 1057) and were proper charges to be brought in an Education Law § 3020-a hearing (see, Matter of Fitzpatrick v Board of Educ., 96 A.D.2d 557). The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222). While the petitioner had no prior disciplinary record and claimed to be under the stress of a number of personal problems at the time of the incident, these factors were considered by the Panel in assessing the penalty.

We have examined the remaining contentions advanced by the petitioner and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Sperling v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 1989
150 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Sperling v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARLENE SPERLING, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 15, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
541 N.Y.S.2d 242

Citing Cases

Simons-Koppel v. N.Y. City Bd./Dep't of Educ.

As the charges provided her with the dates on which or date ranges during which she allegedly engaged in…

Peterson v. Katonah-Lewisboro UFSD

there is evidence of specific incidents of inappropriate, unprofessional, or insubordinate conduct which are…