From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Page v. Macchiarola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1987
126 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

January 26, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find unpersuasive the petitioner's contention that the board's use of her C.A.R. days to offset her absences due to personal illness during the 1974-1975 school year was arbitrary and capricious. The board's reduction of the C.A.R. for the petitioner's absences was performed pursuant to a rational interpretation of the Chancellor's Regulations, and the board was not estopped from making such reductions merely because it had failed to make them during three prior school years (see generally, Granada Bldgs. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, rearg denied 58 N.Y.2d 825; Public Improvements v. Board of Educ., 56 N.Y.2d 850; Chinatown Apts. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 824). Additionally, the board avers that it applies its employees' accumulated sick days against their absences due to illness as a matter of policy in order to prevent the employees from remaining on the payroll indefinitely while preserving their C.A.R. days for later use or for retirement. This explanation of policy is sufficient to support the instant reduction of the petitioner's C.A.R. days (see generally, Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516).

Similarly unavailing is the petitioner's contention that this CPLR article 78 proceeding should be converted pursuant to CPLR 103 (c) to a plenary action for breach of contract. The petitioner seeks review and annulment of the board's determination concerning the use of her C.A.R. days; hence, "[t]here is nothing to suggest that the instant proceeding was an improper procedural vehicle by which to obtain the relief sought" (Matter of Rosenshein v. Board of Educ., 110 A.D.2d 770, 771, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 602). The petitioner's additional, incidental claim for lost salary does not require conversion of the proceeding to a plenary action.

We have considered the petitioner's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Page v. Macchiarola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1987
126 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Page v. Macchiarola

Case Details

Full title:VIVIAN PAGE, Appellant, v. FRANK MACCHIAROLA, as Chancellor of the New…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1987

Citations

126 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Page v. Macchiarola

Decided July 7, 1987 Appeal from (2d dept: 126 A.D.2d 713) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…

Dormer v. Suffolk Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc.

nce policy constitutes a contractual right which was breached by Dormer's expulsion from the PBA, the…