In Matter of Bourke

1 Citing case

  1. Matter of Tucker v. Bd. of Educ

    82 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 34 times

    The statutes do not specify a remedy for violation of the notice requirements (see, Matter of Brida, 11 Ed Dept Rep 76, 77, affd 69 Misc.2d 900 [Sup Ct, Albany County]; Matter of McDaniel, 12 Ed Dept Rep 182, 183). The courts and the State Commissioner of Education, however, have consistently held that teachers are awarded one day's pay for each day the notice was late (see, e.g., Matter of Zunic v Nyquist, 48 A.D.2d 378, 380, affd 40 N.Y.2d 962; Ricca v Board of Educ., 62 A.D.2d 987, 988, revd on other grounds 47 N.Y.2d 385; Matter of Pascal v Board of Educ., 100 A.D.2d 622, 624; Matter of Lehman v Board of Educ., 82 A.D.2d 832, 834; Matter of Gordon, 24 Ed Dept Rep 277, 279; Matter of Rossi, 15 Ed Dept Rep 363, 365; Matter of Brown, 12 Ed Dept Rep 109, 110; Matter of Bourke, 12 Ed Dept Rep 261, 263; Matter of Slater, 12 Ed Dept Rep 275, 277). The foregoing decisions concern cases where the school board's failure to provide the required notice was intentional or due to an oversight.