Opinion
2012-12-20
Jeannine STOYER–RIVERA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent–Respondent.
Jeannine Stoyer–Rivera, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Jeannine Stoyer–Rivera, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling–Cohan, J.), entered September 20, 2011, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration award, confirming the award, issued after a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020–a, which found that petitioner inflicted corporal punishment on a special education student and imposed a $10,000 fine, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly found that the hearing officer's determination was supported by adequate evidence, was rational and neither arbitrary nor capricious ( see Lackow v. Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 A.D.3d 563, 567–568, 859 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2008] ). The sustained specifications were supported by the injured student's testimony, along with the written statements from other student witnesses who corroborated the injured student's version of events, and the testimonial and physical evidence regarding the injured state of the student's ear.
The arbitration award, which imposed a penalty of a $10,000 fine upon petitioner was not “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness” (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, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Batyreva v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 95 A.D.3d 792, 946 N.Y.S.2d 856 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
Petitioner's claim that her due process rights were violated is unpreserved for our review ( see Green v. New York City Police Dept., 34 A.D.3d 262, 263, 825 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 2006] ), and we decline to review it in the interests of justice. Were we to consider this claim, we would find that it lacks merit, since the award was made in accord with due process.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.