Kobylski v. Agone
| Decision Date | 03 December 1962 |
| Citation | 37 Misc.2d 255,234 N.Y.S.2d 907 |
| Parties | Application of Edward P. KOBYLSKI, Petitioner, v. Robert D. AGONE, As Superintendent of Schools at al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Night, Keller & Birch, Binghamton (Willis D. Birch, Binghamton, of counsel), for petitioner.
Smith, Leasure, Gow & Vetrano, Endicott (John D. Smith, Endicott, of counsel), for respondent.
This is a motion commenced pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act in which the petitioner, a teacher in the Union Endicott Central School District, requests an order requiring the respondents, the Superintendent of Schools and the members of the board of education, to restore the petitioner to the payroll of the School District and requiring payment from September, 1962 to present, as well as reinstatement as a full-time Mathematics teacher in the Union Endicott High School.
The petitioner, a 1954 graduate of the University of Scranton, was issued on January 5, 1955, a certificate by the Commissioner of Education, known as a 'Renewable Form', which may be renewed yearly for a period of five years. The regulations of the Commissioner of Education provide that at the end of five years, when thirty hours of post graduate work have been completed, a permanent certificate is to be issued to the teacher. (Reg. of Comm. § 133). The provisional certificate was renewed each year until September 1, 1960.
In 1956, petitioner received a probationary appointment to teach Mathematics at Union Endicott High School. At the end of three years, on April 23, 1959, petitioner received notice of his appointment to tenure, effective September, 1959, pursuant to § 3012 of the Education Law.
Since petitioner had not completed the requisite number of post graduate courses to receive a permanent certificate, he was permitted to teach during the 1961-1962 school year by a waiver or excuse of default, pursuant to § 3604(6) of the Education Law.
On June 15, 1962, after a series of correspondence between the petitioner and Superintendent of Schools discussing petitioner's lack of qualifying status, Robert D. Agone, the Superintendent of Schools, informed the petitioner by letter that the Excuse of Default (referred to above) would expire on June 30, 1962, and since valid certification was still lacking, petitioner's employment would be terminated as of July 16, 1962. In September, 1962, the petitioner appeared at the school ready, willing and able to perform his services as a teacher, but was denied the right to teach. A provisional certificate in Mathematics was issued to the petitioner dated October 15, 1962, and made retroactive to September, 1962.
The petitioner claims that the denial of his right to teach, without written charges and a hearing pursuant to § 3012 of the Education Law, is an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious action which deprives him of his profession and livelihood without due process of law. He argues that once he obtained tenure, he could be relieved only for a reason specifically prescribed by the tenure statute, i. e., insubordination, immoral character or conduct unbecoming a teacher; inefficiency, incompetency, physical or mental disability or neglect of duty. That in the absence of a showing of one of these reasons, after a proper hearing before the board of education, his tenure protected him from dismissal for any other reason.
The respondents argue that the Commissioner of Education has the right, pursuant to § 3004 of the Education Law, to prescribe regulations governing the certification of teachers employed in all public schools of the state. They cite § 3001 of the Education Law, entitled Qualifications of Teachers, which states:
'No person shall be employed or authorized to teach in the public schools of the state who is:
1. Under the age of eighteen years.
2. Not in possession of a teacher's certificate issued under the authority of this chapter * * *.'
Since the petitioner had not obtained the certificate as provided by the Commissioner's regulations, respondents argue they had no right to continue his employment. They further call the court's attention to § 3009 and § 3010 of the Education Law, which provide:
§ 3009 'Unqualified teachers shall not be paid from school moneys
'No part of the school moneys apportioned to a district shall be applied to the payment of the salary of an unqualified teacher, nor shall his salary, or any part thereof, be collected by a district tax except as provided in this chapter.
§ 3010 'Penalty for payment of unqualified teacher
'Any trustee or member of a board of education who applies, or directs, or consents to the application of, any district money to the payment of an unqualified teacher's salary, thereby commits a misdemeanor; * * *.'
Respondents argue that the grounds for removal, stated in the Tenure Statute, have no relation to the ability and qualifications of a teacher, and that nowhere in the Tenure Statute is there any indication that it was intended to protect an unlicensed teacher.
The issue squarely before this court is whether the procedure for removal provided for in the Tenure Statute, § 3012 of the Education Law, is exclusive, and whether this statute limits the right of the Commissioner of Education to prescribe regulations which might result in removal of a teacher in a way other than that provided by the Tenure Statute.
§ 3012 of the Education Law provides as follows:
'Tenure: certain union free school districts
* * *'
In determining the intent of the Legislature, it is helpful to examine prior statutes leading up to the present ones.
'In construing a statute, light is generally thrown upon its meaning by considering any other statute upon the same subject which either preceded or followed it.' People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 N.Y. 169, 172, 66 N.E. 674, 675 (1903).
Prior to 1937, teachers in Union Free School Districts, and consequently Central School Districts (§ 1805, Education Law) did not receive tenure. They were limited to tenure by contract which expired automatically at the expiration of the contract. When § 312-a (the forerunner of § 3012), became effective on July 1, 1937, teachers obtained similar rights to those which had been already provided to teachers in City School Districts for many years. Matter of Carter v. Kalamejski, 255 App.Div. 694, 8 N.Y.S.2d 926, aff'd. 280 N.Y. 803, 21 N.E.2d 692 (1939). Section 2573 of the present Education Law provides for tenure in City School Districts above a certain population. Thus, it was to extend this same right to teachers in other types of districts, that the precursor to section 3012 was enacted. Section 2573 (dealing with City Districts), referred to in various sections of the statute as 2523 (prior to amendment) was first enacted as § 872 of the Education Law of 1910, as added by L.1917, c. 786.
Prior to the incorporation of tenure provisions into the Education Law, tenure was provided by the Greater New York Charter (L.1901, ch. 466) (Eriksen v. City of New York, 167 Misc. 42, 2 N.Y.S.2d 280) (Sup.Ct.N.Y.City.1937). The Charter, therefore, is the forerunner of modern tenure provisions, and by shedding light on the legislative intent of the early statutes, a better understanding of today's statutes will be obtained.
The Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 N.Y. 169, at page 172-173, 66 N.E. 674, at page 675 (1903) said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyers v. Kishimoto
...of a tenured teacher for failure to adhere to certain regulations regarding certification. See, e.g., Kobylski v. Agone, 37 Misc.2d 255, 234 N.Y.S.2d 907, 915–16 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962), aff'd 19 A.D.2d 761, 242 N.Y.S.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963). The tenure statute addressed by that decision ......
-
Pordum v. Board of Regents of State of New York
...Law § 2573(5) (supra). (Matter of Mannix v. Board of Educ., 21 N.Y. 455, 460, 288 N.Y.S.2d 881, 235 N.E.2d 892; Matter of Kobylski v. Agone, 37 Misc.2d 255, 263, 234 N.Y.S.2d 907). In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment argument of vagueness, the plaintiff next contends § 305(7) of the Edu......
-
Newman v. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York
...York law a tenured teacher in New York City schools may not be removed from office without a hearing. Kobylski v. Agone, 37 Misc.2d 255, 261-64, 234 N.Y.S.2d 907, 913-16 (Sup.Ct.1962), Affd., 19 A.D.2d 761, 242 N.Y.S.2d 630 (1963); Glass v. Board of Education,21 A.D.2d 891, 251 N.Y.S.2d 805......
-
Amos v. Board of Ed. of Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free School Dist.
...tenured teachers, since the tenure statutes provide the exclusive method for dismissal for those teachers (Matter of Kobylski v. Agone, 37 Misc.2d 255, 234 N.Y.S.2d 907, affd. 19 A.D.2d 761, 242 N.Y.S.2d 630). The board cannot circumvent this rule by following the procedure employed herein.......