Opinion
09-28-2017
In re Stephanie KRILOFF, Petitioner–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent–Appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for appellant. Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place (Rick Ostrove of counsel), for respondent.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for appellant.Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place (Rick Ostrove of counsel), for respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 17, 2016, annulling respondent's determination, dated March 25, 2015, which discontinued petitioner's probationary employment as a teacher, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.
Petitioner failed to show that respondent's discontinuation of her probationary employment was done in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of the law (see Matter of Mendez v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 N.Y.3d 993, 41 N.Y.S.3d 208, 63 N.E.3d 1152 [2016] ). Petitioner contends that respondent erred in concluding that her actions—taking hold of the arm of a non-verbal, special-needs student as he lay on the floor writhing and physically dragging him approximately eight feet across the hall to the classroom he had exited without permission—constituted prohibited corporal punishment. This contention is insufficient to establish that respondent reached its conclusion in bad faith or for an impermissible reason (see id.; Matter of Reiser v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 133 A.D.3d 465, 18 N.Y.S.3d 861 [1st Dept.2015] ).
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, OING, SINGH, JJ., concur.