Clausen v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 01 May 1972 |
| Citation | 331 N.Y.S.2d 855,39 A.D.2d 708 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Martha M. CLAUSEN, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MUNDER, Acting P.J., and GULOTTA, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination discontinuing petitioner's services as a teacher in the elementary schools of the City of New York prior to the expiration of her probationary period, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated August 6, 1971, which granted the petition and annulled the determination.
Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; proceeding dismissed on the merits; and determination confirmed.
In our opinion, the hearing afforded petitioner which resulted in the discontinuance of her services was adequate to protect her rights. Neither statute nor due process requires a plenary hearing or representation by counsel in such a matter (Matter of Butler v. Allen, 29 A.D.2d 799, 287 N.Y.S.2d 197; Matter of Pinto v. Wynstra, 22 A.D.2d 914, 255 N.Y.S.2d 536; Matter of Albury v. New York City Civ. Serv. Comm., 32 A.D.2d 895, 302 N.Y.S.2d 3, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 694, 314 N.Y.S.2d 13, 262 N.E.2d 219; Matter of Gordon v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 35 A.D.2d 868, 315 N.Y.S.2d 366, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 684, 325 N.Y.S.2d 416, 274 N.E.2d 750).
We find no basis for holding that petitioner was prejudiced by the denial of her application for an adjournment. Approximately one month's notice of the hearing was given. It is clear on this record that when petitioner appeared for the hearing she was aware that she was not permitted to be represented by counsel.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Board of Ed. of City of Yonkers
...no vested rights and his services could be discontinued without a hearing and without giving reasons therefor (Mtr. of Clausen v. Bd. of Educ., 39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855; Legis. Conference v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 38 A.D.2d 478, 330 N.Y.S.2d 688, affd. 31 N.Y.2d 926, 340 N.Y.S.2d 924, ......
-
Frasier v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York
...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 collective bargaining agreement. Section 5.3.4 does no more than ......
-
Castro v. New York City Bd. of Educ.
...advisory determination, but that due process safeguards beyond that are not constitutionally required. See Clausen v. Board of Educ., 39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855 (2d Dep't 1972). Moreover, it is clear that with regard to this claim, Castro has not exhibited a constitutionally protectabl......
-
McAulay v. Board of Ed. of City of New York.
...as to mandate representation by counsel. Brown v. Board of Educ., 42 A.D.2d 702, 345 N.Y.S.2d 595, Supra, Clausen v. Board of Educ., 39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855 (2d Dept. 1972). Cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2981--2982, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 959 As a matter of general p......