From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Rabenswaay v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 23, 2016
140 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-23-2016

In re Anne Van RABENSWAAY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jeremy W. Shweder of counsel), for respondents.


Glass Krakower LLP, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jeremy W. Shweder of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2015, denying the petition to annul respondents' determination, which upheld petitioner's unsatisfactory rating (U–rating) for the 2012–2013 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner has failed to show that the U–rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The evidence that petitioner failed to timely complete individualized education plans (IEPs) for at least five of her students, despite repeated warnings and offers of assistance from the IEP coordinator, provided a rational basis for the rating (see e.g. Matter of Murnane v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 A.D.3d 576, 919 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept.2011] ; Batyreva v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 50 A.D.3d 283, 854 N.Y.S.2d 390 [1st Dept.2008] ). Petitioner's various excuses, even if valid, would not warrant a finding that the U–rating was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. To accept them would amount to second-guessing the determination that her repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U–rating (see Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87, 92, 699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966 [1999] ).

Furthermore, petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any issue of fact that could show, even if resolved in her favor, arbitrary and capricious action under the circumstances. Thus, there was no need for the court to have conducted a hearing (see CPLR 7804[h] ).

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Van Rabenswaay v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 23, 2016
140 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Van Rabenswaay v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:In re Anne Van RABENSWAAY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 23, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
140 A.D.3d 596
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5051

Citing Cases

Kotowski v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Here, respondents reasonably relied on the findings of two psychologists, who, after interviewing petitioner,…

Amanwah v. Dep't of Educ. of N.Y.

Supreme Court properly declined to consider petitioner's conclusory claim of tenure-by-estoppel, raised for…