From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Spilka Bus Corp. v. Board of Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 10, 1981
83 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

August 10, 1981


Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents which rescinded petitioner's pupil transportation contract. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. Initially, we note that the petition raises both issues of fact and law. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the proceeding was properly transferred by Special Term to this court for disposition in the first instance (CPLR 7804, subd [g]; Matter of Mistler v Tofany, 39 A.D.2d 710; cf. Matter of Posh Bagel v. Board of Health of County of Westchester, 75 A.D.2d 898). There is clearly a substantial measure of evidence supporting the determination that petitioner had intended to default on the labor agreement in issue on the first day of the 1979 school year. The conflicting assertions offered by petitioner and respondents posed, at best, clear-cut issues of veracity and conflicting inferences to be determined by the administrative trier of the facts. We further note that respondents' decision to cancel the subject contract prior to affording petitioner an evidentiary hearing before the board of review had a rational basis and cannot be deemed arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law (see by-laws of the Board of Education of the City of New York, art 8, § 8.3; pars 3 and 7 of the general terms and conditions of the subject contract). Furthermore, upon balancing petitioner's private monetary interest in attempting to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract (which, we note, can be remedied by State law) against the more weighty governmental interest involved here, concerning respondents' obligation to provide efficient and uninterrupted bus transportation of handicapped children to and from school, it is clear that petitioner received the due process to which it was constitutionally entitled by means of a prompt posttermination written notice and evidentiary hearing (see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319). Damiani, J.P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Spilka Bus Corp. v. Board of Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 10, 1981
83 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Matter of Spilka Bus Corp. v. Board of Educ

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SPILKA BUS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION…

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

Date published: Aug 10, 1981

Citations

83 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Jackson v. Inhabitants of Town of Searsport

Accordingly, we conclude that even if a legitimate property interest were involved, our State procedure…

In re Revocation of Pistol License of Castillo

Additionally, petitioner claims that the License Division failed to "consider petitioner's societal…