Radoff v. Board of Educ. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 27 February 1984 |
| Citation | 472 N.Y.S.2d 444,99 A.D.2d 840 |
| Parties | , 16 Ed. Law Rep. 564 In the Matter of Jack RADOFF, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Coblence & Warner, New York City (Marjorie M. Smith and Kenneth E. Warner, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Michael Gage, Susan R. Rosenberg, Leslie C. Kamelhar and Patricia A. O'Malley, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, O'CONNOR and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent board of education, dated March 2, 1983, which, upon the recommendation of a hearing panel, dismissed petitioner from his tenured position as a social studies teacher pursuant to section 3020-a of the Education Law.
Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Petitioner's argument that there was no substantial evidence to support the respondent board of education's determination is without merit, inasmuch as said argument is based on the legal residuum rule (see Matter of Carrol v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 218 N.Y. 435, 113 N.E. 507) which no longer has vitality in this State (Matter of Eagle v. Paterson, 57 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 455 N.Y.S.2d 759, 442 N.E.2d 56). In any event, our review of the record reveals that the board's determination was based on evidence which could reasonably convince the trier of fact that petitioner was guilty of the charges brought (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). Nor was petitioner deprived of his due process right to confront adverse witnesses by the board's failure to produce, at the hearing, the author of an inter-office memorandum used to support its case, when petitioner was free to subpoena this person (cf. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 404-405, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1428-29, 28 L.Ed.2d 842).
The penalty of dismissal was not excessive in view of the fact that petitioner refused to perform reassigned duties during his suspension pending a hearing on other charges, and he was found to have wilfully absented himself without authorization for a period of almost 11 months (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brady v. A Certain Teacher
...misconduct and be subject to dismissal after a hearing pursuant to section 3020-a (see generally Matter of Radoff v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 99 A.D.2d 840, 472 N.Y.S.2d 444 [1984], affd. 64 N.Y.2d 90, 485 N.Y.S.2d 1, 474 N.E.2d 209 [1984]; Matter of Adlerstein v. Board of Educ. ......
-
Adlerstein v. Board of Educ. of City of New York
...485 N.Y.S.2d 1 ... 64 N.Y.2d 90, 474 N.E.2d 209, 22 Ed ... Law Rep. 1220 ... In the Matter of Isidore ADLERSTEIN, Appellant, ... BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent ... In the Matter of Jack RADOFF, Appellant, ... BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent ... Court of Appeals of New York ... Dec. 18, 1984 ... ... Ronald J. Koerner, Brooklyn, for appellant in the first above-entitled matter ... Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation ... ...
-
Shapiro v. New York City Police Dept. (License Div.)
...of proper procedure in that the cab driver and his passenger were not witnesses, he was free to subpoena them. Matter of Radoff, supra, 99 A.D.2d at 841, 472 N.Y.S.2d 444. Respondent tried unsuccessfully to contact them; but made no effort to secure their last known addresses or other parti......
-
Wright v. Commissioner of New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
...which could reasonably convince the trier of fact that the petitioner was guilty of the charges (see, Radoff v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York, 99 A.D.2d 840, 472 N.Y.S.2d 444, aff'd 64 N.Y.2d 90, 485 N.Y.S.2d 1, 474 N.E.2d 209). The investigating officer's testimony rationally supp......