Opinion
05-11-2017
Berta MORALES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/Department of Education, Respondent–Respondent.
Berta Morales, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Damion K.L. Stodola of counsel), for respondent.
Berta Morales, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Damion K.L. Stodola of counsel), for respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered March 22, 2016, which, among other things, denied petitioner's petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated March 27, 2015, terminating petitioner's employment as a tenured teacher upon finding her guilty of multiple disciplinary charges, confirmed the award, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The arbitration award was supported by the record and was not arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. Matter of Davis v. New York City Bd./ Dept. of Educ., 137 A.D.3d 716, 717, 30 N.Y.S.3d 2 [1st Dept.2016], lv. denied 29 N.Y.3d 903, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op 69365, 2017 WL 1223678 [2017]; see also Matter of Benjamin v. New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 105 A.D.3d 677, 678, 964 N.Y.S.2d 139 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The hearing officer issued a detailed decision in which she thoroughly analyzed the facts, evaluated credibility, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion (Davis, 137 A.D.3d at 717, 30 N.Y.S.3d 2 ). Petitioner's due process rights were not violated; she was provided with appropriate notice, was represented by counsel at a 13–day hearing and had the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses (id. ). Petitioner's claim of bias by the hearing officer is speculative and unsupported by the evidence (id. ).
The penalty of termination does not shock the court's sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 234, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ), given petitioner's teaching deficiencies over the course of three years, the absence of any improvement despite assistance offered by respondent, and her refusal to acknowledge her shortcomings (see Davis, 137 A.D.3d at 717, 30 N.Y.S.3d 2 ). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
SWEENY, J.P., RICHTER, ANDRIAS, FEINMAN, KAHN, JJ., concur.