Clark v. Rockowitz

• Decision Date: 05 October 1976
• Citation: 387 N.Y.S.2d 293,54 A.D.2d 698
• Parties: In the Matter of Osmond CLARK, Appellant, v. Murray ROCKOWITZ, as Chairman of the New York City Board of Examiners, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 293

387 N.Y.S.2d 293

54 A.D.2d 698

In the Matter of Osmond CLARK, Appellant, v. Murray ROCKOWITZ, as Chairman of the New York City Board of Examiners, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Oct. 5, 1976.

John C. Gray, Jr., Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B, Brooklyn (Harold Adler, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.

W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Diane R. Eisner and L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Before COHALAN, Acting P.J., and MARGETT, DAMIANI, SHAPIRO and TITONE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 Inter alia to review a determination of the respondent Board of Examiners which denied petitioner's application for a Bilingual Teacher-Intern license, petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 30, 1976, as dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner applied for an intern license as part of the requirements for participation in the 'Bilingual Teacher Intern Program'. Petitioner did not attain eligibility for the license because he failed to pass the Board of Examiner's 'Appraisal of Record'. Under the circumstances, petitioner's interests were sufficiently tentative and contingent so as to defeat his claim that he should have been accorded all the safeguards of procedural due process (see Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548). The board's action herein is not subject to the kind of review associated with quasi-judicial actions; rather, the scope of review is the limited one appropriate to the review of purely administrative actions (see Matter of Armere Holding Corp. v. Bell, 37 N.Y.2d 925, 379 N.Y.S.2d 838, 342 N.E.2d 600). On the record before us, the board's determination was not arbitrary and capricious.