From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sorell v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 3, 1990
168 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 3, 1990

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


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner, a former probationary teacher in the New York City public school system, alleges in the instant proceeding that the Chancellor's determination dated July 11, 1988, which reaffirmed a prior determination discontinuing his probationary employment, was "illegal, arbitrary and capricious". Specifically, the petitioner alleges that an "OP-11B form" reviewing his probationary service, dated June 22, 1987, and countersigned by the petitioner on June 23, 1987, contained the principal's signature following a recommendation of discontinuance of the petitioner's probationary employment, but did not contain the authentic or authorized signature of the "responsible superintendent", i.e., James Canfield, as required by the Board of Education's Special Circular No. 45. Special Circular No. 45 provides, in pertinent part:

"1. Authority to Recommend Discontinuance of Probation

"A principal or director, with the concurrence of the responsible superintendent, may recommend discontinuance of probationary service".

We disagree with the petitioner's argument.

It is true that, at a hearing conducted in June 1988, pursuant to the Board of Education's Bylaws § 5.3.4, Superintendent Canfield acknowledged, for the first time, that his purported signature on the OP-11B form "look[ed] like someone else's", and was unauthorized. However, Superintendent Canfield also testified that in a letter to the petitioner, dated June 12, 1987, he negatively evaluated the petitioner. Canfield's negative evaluation letter, which was countersigned by the petitioner on June 26, 1987, and admitted into evidence at the hearing, also stated: "I will support your principal's rating of your service during the past year".

Under these circumstances, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of any substantial right (cf., Matter of Lehman v. Board of Educ., 82 A.D.2d 832). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Sorell v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 3, 1990
168 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Sorell v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MURRAY SORELL, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 572

Citing Cases

Zarinfar v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.

Moreover, a review of the hearing summary indicates that, unlike the petitioners in the defective notice…

Weber v. City of New York

In contrast, deficiencies in the Annual Professional Performance Review ("APPR") process will not render a…