Miller v. Theodore-Tassy
| Decision Date | 07 February 2012 |
| Citation | 938 N.Y.S.2d 172,276 Ed. Law Rep. 382,92 A.D.3d 650,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00940 |
| Parties | Nancy MILLER, respondent, v. Margaret THEODORE–TASSY, appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael A. Cardozo, CorporationCounsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for appellant.
Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marshall B. Bellovin and Rudy A. Dermesropian of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract, the defendantMargaret Theodore–Tassy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kerrigan, J.), entered August 30, 2010, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her or for leave to amend her answer to add certain affirmative defenses.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion of the defendantMargaret Theodore–Tassy which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her is granted, and the motion is otherwise denied as academic.
In 2004the plaintiff, a tenured teacher, was appointed as a probationary assistant principal at an elementary school in Queens by the school's principal, who acted pursuant to authority delegated to her by the Chancellor of the City of New York Department of Education(hereinafter the DOE).In March 2005, an investigation was initiated after allegations arose that the plaintiff, while supervising lunch in the cafeteria, disciplined a class of students taught by the defendantMargarette Tassy, sued herein as Margaret Theodore–Tassy, by forcing the students to eat their lunch on the floor, not allowing them to retrieve utensils and thereby forcing them to eat with their hands, referring to them as “animals,” and making disparaging remarks about their country of origin.The allegations garnered considerable press coverage.
Following the investigation, the allegations that the plaintiff forced the students to eat lunch on the floor without utensils and referred to them as animals were substantiated, but the allegation that she made disparaging remarks about their country of origin was not substantiated.Thereafter, the plaintiff was discontinued as a probationary assistant principal, and the DOE preferred charges against her pursuant to Education Law § 3020–a.Following a hearing, the plaintiff was found guilty of forcing the students to eat lunch on the floor, not allowing them to retrieve utensils, and causing widespread negative publicity to the DOE by these actions, but she was found not guilty of referring to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moulton Paving, LLC v. Town of Poughkeepsie
...with a contract ( see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370;Miller v. Theodore–Tassy, 92 A.D.3d 650–651, 938 N.Y.S.2d 172;Monex Fin. Servs., Ltd. v. Dynamic Currency Conversion, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 515, 904 N.Y.S.2d 919;Dome Prop. Mgt., Inc. v. B......
-
Golia v. Vieira
...668 N.E.2d 1370 ; Moulton Paving, LLC v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 98 A.D.3d 1009, 1010–1011, 950 N.Y.S.2d 762 ; Miller v. Theodore–Tassy, 92 A.D.3d 650, 650–651, 938 N.Y.S.2d 172 ). However, in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), LICH submitted documenta......
-
White Knight of Flatbush LLC v. Deacons the Dutch Congregation of Flatbush
...term "improper" in connection with the third element of the cause of action. (Nancy Miller v Margaret Theodore-Tassy, 92 A.D.3d 650, 938 N.Y.S.2d 172, 276 Ed. Law Rep. 382, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00940 [2d Dept. 2012]; Lama Holding Company et al. v Smith Barney Inc. et al., 88 N.Y.2d 413, at 42......
-
Pabon v. Many
...resulting therefrom ( see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 668 N.E.2d 1370;Miller v. Theodore–Tassy, 92 A.D.3d 650, 651, 938 N.Y.S.2d 172). Since an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action is that UPS actually breached the CBA, resolution o......