Field v. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 01 March 2017
• Citation: 49 N.Y.S.3d 472,148 A.D.3d 702
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas FIELD, petitioner, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, Yonkers Public Schools District, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

148 A.D.3d 702

49 N.Y.S.3d 472

In the Matter of Thomas FIELD, petitioner,

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION, Yonkers Public Schools District, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 1, 2017.

Nathaniel K. Charny, Rhinebeck, NY (Russell Wheeler of counsel), for petitioner.

Michael V. Curti, Corporation Counsel, Yonkers, NY (Hina Sherwani and Michelle H. Klemperer of counsel), for respondent.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Education, Yonkers Public Schools District, dated September 12, 2013, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated July 22, 2013, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct, insubordination, and incompetence, and terminated his employment.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination terminating his employment as a custodian at a middle school in Yonkers. The termination was recommended by a hearing officer who presided over a disciplinary hearing held in connection with charges that the petitioner had engaged in acts of misconduct, insubordination, and incompetence, and was adopted by the Board of Education, Yonkers Public Schools District.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the proper standard of review in this matter is the substantial evidence standard. The petitioner's claim that the proper standard of review should be a fair preponderance of the evidence is without merit. That standard applies when the penalty of dismissal is accompanied by some added stigma (see Matter of Miller v. DeBuono, 90 N.Y.2d 783, 794, 666 N.Y.S.2d 548, 689 N.E.2d 518 ). Here, no such added stigma is present since the petitioner's termination neither bars him from seeking future employment as a custodian nor subjects him to a requirement that his name be placed on a public registry (see Matter of Lebron v. Village of Spring Val., 143 A.D.3d 720, 39 N.Y.S.3d 43 ; Matter of Agnew v. North Colonie Cent. School Dist., 14 A.D.3d 830, 831, 787 N.Y.S.2d 521 ). Applying the substantial evidence standard, we find that the hearing officer's determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179–180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ).

The petitioner's contention that the...