Opinion
15280 Index No. 154399/20 Case No. 2020–04831
02-10-2022
In the Matter of German SANCHEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Stewart Lee Karlin of counsel), for appellant. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for respondents.
Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Stewart Lee Karlin of counsel), for appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Moulton, Kennedy, Rodriguez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Engoron, J.), entered on or about November 24, 2020, denying the petition to annul a determination by respondents (DOE), dated February 5, 2020, that petitioner was not entitled to the restoration of his tenure upon his return from resignation, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that petitioner was not entitled to restoration of his tenure on the ground that he failed to provide 30 days’ notice of his resignation was not arbitrary and capricious (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, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ). "[J]udicial deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations is a basic tenet of administrative law" ( Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 152, 175, 100 N.Y.S.3d 612, 124 N.E.3d 162 [2019] ). We have held that DOE employees must "strictly" comply with the procedures set forth in Chancellor's Regulation C 205 ( Matter of Vaccaro v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 139 A.D.3d 612, 30 N.Y.S.3d 824 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.