MATTER OF DONLON v. Mills
| Decision Date | 29 April 1999 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of WILLIAM L. DONLON, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>RICHARD P. MILLS, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. |
Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Petitioner served as the Superintendent of Schools for the Caledonia-Mumford Central School District (hereinafter the District) from August 1, 1988 until August 29, 1995. As the result of an abortive project for the purchase and installation of four portable trailers that were intended to be used as temporary classrooms, the District's Board of Education filed disciplinary charges against petitioner. The District paid over $100,000 for the trailers, but was ultimately deprived of their use and also available State funding.
The statement of charges alleged that petitioner, inter alia, violated the requirement of Education Law § 408 that approval be obtained before purchasing a schoolhouse for a cost of more than $100,000, failed to comply with the requirements of 8 NYCRR 155.2 (a) for a construction project costing over $10,000, failed to comply with the requirements of the General Municipal Law relative to a public works project costing over $50,000, violated the statutory requirements relative to the letting of contracts on the basis of competitive bidding and providing for payment to contractors through progress payments rather than lump-sum payments, and failed to comply with the requirement that respondent Commissioner of Education issue a certificate of occupancy prior to the occupancy of a school structure. An extensive hearing was conducted, and the Board ultimately sustained six of the eight charges contained in the statement of charges and adopted a resolution discharging petitioner. An administrative appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed on findings that petitioner had received a fair hearing, was not denied due process at his disciplinary hearing despite the fact that certain Board members served dual investigative and adjudicatory roles, and that the Board made adequate findings of fact.
Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming in four separate causes of action that the Commissioner's decision was arbitrary and capricious, the penalty of termination was excessive and disproportionate to petitioner's actions, the hearing conducted by the Board denied petitioner due process of law because several Board members had prejudged the matter, and petitioner had no knowledge of the various statutes that he allegedly violated. Although agreeing with the Board's assertion that the appropriate standard to be applied is whether the Commissioner's decision was arbitrary and capricious, Supreme Court nevertheless proceeded to transfer the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) on the basis of its conclusion that a substantial evidence issue had been raised.
As a threshold matter, we agree with all parties' assertion that the proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court. It is established law that the proper standard to be applied in reviewing a determination of the Commissioner made pursuant to the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Education Law article 7 (see, Education Law § 310), is "`whether the Commissioner's decision is arbitrary and capricious, was affected by an error of law or constitutes an abuse of discretion'" (Matter of Cargill v Sobol, 165 AD2d 131, 133, lv denied 78 NY2d 854, quoting Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach, 142 AD2d 869, 870; accord, Matter of Board of Educ. v Mills, 250 AD2d 122, 125-126, lv denied 93 NY2d 803). Consequently, no substantial evidence issue could have been properly raised. In the interest of judicial economy, however, we will retain jurisdiction and determine the merits of the proceeding (see, Matter of Forte v Mills, 250 AD2d 882, 883, n 2).
In contending that the findings of guilt were arbitrary and capricious, petitioner primarily contends that because he is not a lawyer, architect or engineer, he was not aware of the various laws and regulations applicable to school district building projects and that it was the Board and its attorneys who were primarily responsible for noncompliance with the various legal provisions alleged in the statement of charges. We are not persuaded. In fact, the record indicates that petitioner played the central role in purchasing the temporary classrooms and in disregarding the applicable laws and regulations. Notably, petitioner initiated the visit to another local school district to view its portable classrooms and then contacted the vendor, negotiated a purchase price for the portable classrooms and authorized the District's business manager to deliver the check for $105,000 to the vendor. In addition, petitioner directed the District's business manager to "take care of the paperwork" regarding the purchase agreement, selected a location for the portables, approved additional expenditures for the project without Board approval and authorized a faculty member to move materials into the portable classrooms before a certificate of occupancy was received.
The record also establishes petitioner's major role in bringing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. State Univ. of N.Y.
...139 A.D.3d 1169, 1170, 31 N.Y.S.3d 277 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Donlon v. Mills, 260 A.D.2d 971, 974, 689 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 752, 700 N.Y.S.2d 426, 722 N.E.2d 506 [1999] ). Petitioner objected to the Hearing Offi......
-
Bd. of Educ. of the Minisink Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Elia
...School Dist. v. Commissioner of Educ. , 91 N.Y.2d 133, 139, 667 N.Y.S.2d 671, 690 N.E.2d 480 [1997] ; see Matter of Donlon v. Mills , 260 A.D.2d 971, 972, 689 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 752, 700 N.Y.S.2d 426, 722 N.E.2d 506 [1999] ). In assessing whether such is the case, we "......
-
Zlotnick v. City of Saratoga Springs
...Helmer v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 305 A.D.2d 949, 950, 761 N.Y.S.2d 124 [2003] ; Matter of Donlon v. Mills, 260 A.D.2d 971, 974, 689 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 752, 700 N.Y.S.2d 426, 722 N.E.2d 506 [1999] ). Based upon our review of the record as a ......
-
Saad–El–Din v. Steiner
...interest of judicial economy ( see Matter of Mudge v. Huxley, 79 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 914 N.Y.S.2d 339 [2010];Matter of Donlon v. Mills, 260 A.D.2d 971, 972, 689 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1999],lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 752, 700 N.Y.S.2d 426, 722 N.E.2d 506 [1999] ...