Brown v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 02 July 1973 |
| Citation | 42 A.D.2d 702,345 N.Y.S.2d 595,34 N.Y.2d 519 |
| Parties | Application of Elizabeth BROWN, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK and Harvey B. Scribner, as Chancellor of the City School District of the City of New York. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MUNDER, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, SHAPIRO, CHRIST and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR (1) to annul a determination, dated July 21, 1971, made by respondent Chancellor, approving prior recommendations for discontinuance of petitioner's services, and terminating her appointment as a probationary teacher of social studies in the day high schools, as of August 31, 1971; and (2) for related relief, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1973, which dismissed the petition.
Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remanded to respondents for proceedings consistent with the views set forth herein. Pursuant to section 105a of the By-laws of respondent Board of Education, respondents are directed to provide for a review of the recommendations which had been made for the discontinuance of petitioner's services. The review shall be conducted consistently with the following memorandum. The findings of fact made by Special Term have not been considered in this determination.
Prior to 1968 petitioner was licensed as a substitute teacher by respondent Board of Education of the City of New York (the Board). In 1968 she obtained a license to teach as a three-year probationary regular teacher. She commenced her service as such probationary teacher in September, 1969, at the Central Commercial High School.
On March 26, 1971, Simpson Sasserath, the principal of that school, recommended that petitioner's services as a probationary teacher be discontinued because her services allegedly were unsatisfactory. On April 16, 1971 that recommendation was approved by James Boffman Assistant Superintendent for City District Personnel. Petitioner appealed from that recommendation.
On May 20, 1971, petitioner was given notice to attend a meeting to be held on June 14, 1971, at which time the recommendation for discontinuance of her services as a probationary teacher would be reviewed by the Chancellor's Committee. That notice, allegedly mailed to her in compliance with the requirements of section 105a of the Board's By-laws failed to comply with that By-law because it did not advise petitioner that she had the right, at that review 'to be confronted by witnesses, to call witnesses and to introduce any relevant evidence.'
The Board's rules contained in its By-laws are binding on it (Education Law, § 2554, subd. 13, par. a; 1 N.Y.Jur., Administrative Law, § 110; also cf. People ex rel. Jordan v. Martin, 152 N.Y. 311, 46 N.E. 484; Matter of Poss v. Kern, 263 App.Div. 320, 32 N.Y.S.2d 979). Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the United Federation of Teachers in effect for the period from September 8, 1969, to September 8, 1972, provides in article IV () that 'teachers on probation shall be entitled to the review procedures before the * * * Chancellor as prescribed in section 105a of the by-laws of the Board of Education.' 1
In light of the foregoing we find that the notice sent by the respondents to petitioner on May 20, 1971, was defective, but in view of our determination we do not now decide whether that defect was waived by petitioner's appearance before the Chancellor's committee at the Chancellor's office on June 14, 1971.
At that review petitioner sought to interrogate Mr. Sasserath, her principal, concerning his reasons for requesting the discontinuance of her services. Such interrogation was not allowed by the Chairman of the Chancellor's reviewing committee. In our opinion, under section 105a of the Board's By-laws she was entitled to interrogate him. Petitioner thereby was deprived of a substantial right because she was thus prevented from exercising her rights to 'call witnesses' and introduce 'relevant evidence.' Further, we believe that ruling also deprived her of her right to be 'confronted by witnesses' against her.
Such right of confrontation carries with it the right to crossexamine a witness who charged her with unsatisfactory service allegedly justifying the discontinuance of her service and loss of her license as a probationary teacher (5 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 1395; People v. Fish, 125 N.Y. 136, 150, 26 N.E. 319, 322).
Accordingly, we hold that on the remanded review under section 105a of the Board's By-laws which we have directed in this determination, petitioner should be allowed to interrogate any person including her principal, Mr. Sasserath, as a witness, on mattters relevant to the subject review, and that she should be duly notified of a review before a committee of the Chancellor other than the committee which conducted the review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Board of Ed. of City of Yonkers
... ... Supreme Court, Westchester County ... March 19, 1974 ... Page 523 ... Eugene M. Kaufman, New York City, for petitioners ... Eugene J. Fox, Corp. Counsel, Yonkers, for respondents ... JOSEPH F. GAGLIARDI, ... Bd. of Ed., 42 A.D.2d 591, 344 N.Y.S.2d 732; Mtr. of Tischler v. Bd. of Educ., Monroe, 37 A.D.2d 261, 323 N.Y.S.2d 508, Supra; Mtr. of Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 76 Misc.2d 923, 352 N.Y.S.2d 378 (dec. Feb. 4, 1974)). The Commissioner of Education has recently ruled that such claims are ... ...
-
Golomb v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York
... ... In this matter petitioner correctly argues, in essence, that by law (see Matter of Brown v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 42 A.D.2d 702, 703, 345 N.Y.S.2d 595), her status as a probationary teacher was terminable only by the school district's chancellor, not by her principal, who was a subordinate wholly lacking the delegated power to act upon the recommendation of dismissal ... ...
-
Frasier v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York
... ... Board of Educ., 37 N.Y.2d 891, 892, 378 N.Y.S.2d 371, 340 N.E.2d 735). In the City of New York, the Chancellor, as the Board's designee, may properly make the determination to discontinue a probationer ( see, Matter of Brown v. Board of Educ., 42 A.D.2d 702, 345 N.Y.S.2d 595 lv. denied 34 N.Y.2d 519, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 316 N.E.2d 884). A teacher who has been discontinued, however, may ask the Chancellor to review his decision and, in effect, reverse himself pursuant to section 5.3.4 of the Board of Education bylaws ... ...
-
Lehman v. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of City of New York
... ... Board of Educ., 73 A.D.2d 623, 422 N.Y.S.2d 466; Matter of Parris v. Board of Educ., 48 A.D.2d 835, 368 N.Y.S.2d 559, mot. for lv. to app. den. 37 N.Y.2d 712, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 340 N.E.2d 753; Matter of Brown v. Board of Educ., 42 A.D.2d 702, 345 N.Y.S.2d 595, mot. for lv. to app. den. 34 N.Y.2d 519, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 316 N.E.2d 884), and the same principle must apply to regulations promulgated by the Chancellor. This is in accord with the fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's ... ...