Ahrens v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 23 May 1977 |
| Citation | 57 A.D.2d 925,395 N.Y.S.2d 44 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Kathleen AHRENS et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Henry C. Woicik, New York City, for appellants.
W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Renee Modry and Leonard Koerner, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before COHALAN, J. P., and DAMIANI, RABIN and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to prohibit respondents from enforcing any eligibility requirements against them other than those required for initial employment, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 11, 1977, which dismissed the petition.
Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements.
Petitioners were New York City public school teachers whose licenses were obtained as a result of competitive examinations announced subsequent to May 22, 1969. At the time they were licensed, petitioners were informed that in order to maintain their licenses additional academic requirements had to be completed within five years. Petitioners were notified that their licenses would be terminated in June, 1976 and that they would be dismissed for failure to complete the necessary academic requirements. Petitioners did not appeal their dismissals pursuant to section 13 of the by-laws of the Board of Education and did not seek restoration of their licenses pursuant to section 255(b) of those by-laws. They apparently would not have been granted relief under those sections since they do not allege that they have satisfied the necessary academic requirements.
Petitioners contend that dismissal for failure to meet post-employment job qualifications must be resolved at a hearing (see Matter of Mannix v. Board of Educ., 21 N.Y.2d 455, 288 N.Y.S.2d 881, 235 N.E.2d 892). In Mannix the court held that a tenured teacher could not be dismissed without a hearing. The holding in Mannix, however, relied upon subdivisions 1 and 5 of section 2573 of the Education Law, which were amended as a result of the Mannix decision (see L.1969, ch. 822; L.1971, ch. 732). Subdivision 1 of section 2573 provides that teachers shall serve a "probationary period of three years" before being granted tenure. As amended, subdivision 1 of section 2573 provides that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frasier v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York
...right to a review of the Chancellor's decisions to discontinue their services and to deny tenure ( see, Matter of Ahrens v. Board of Educ., 57 A.D.2d 925, 395 N.Y.S.2d 44; Matter of Clausen v. Board of Educ., 39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855). Their right to a review stems solely from the co......
-
Novod v. Board of Examiners of Bd. of Educ. of City of New York
...the minimum requirements for the license and petitioner's clear qualifications at the time of revocation (cf. Matter of Ahrens v. Board of Educ., 57 A.D.2d 925, 395 N.Y.S.2d 44), compel the conclusion that respondents' determination was arbitrary and ...
-
Kudler v. Board of Educ. of City of New York
...within five years of the issuance of his license under the so-called 1986 "closed exam" (see, Matter of Ahrens v. Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 57 A.D.2d 925, 395 N.Y.S.2d 44; Education Law former § The petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or ......