Richards v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 27 May 2014
• Parties: In re Kameisa RICHARDS, Petitioner–Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 605

985 N.Y.S.2d 574

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03765

In re Kameisa RICHARDS, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Appellants.

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

May 27, 2014.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay Ng of counsel), for appellants.

Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Eric W. Chen of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered July 5, 2012, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition to annul petitioner teacher's unsatisfactory annual performance rating (U–rating) for the 2009–2010 school year, granting the petition to annul the U–rating, and remanding the proceeding to respondents for a new determination of her rating for that year, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, respondents' cross motion granted, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Petitioner was a probationary teacher who took over a class in the second week of November 2009, during her second year of teaching. The principal issued a year-end U–rating based on facts indicating a lack of progress toward implementing suggestions to improve the teaching and learning environment, along with a view that petitioner inherited a well-managed class without instructional and disciplinary concerns, which deteriorated under petitioner's leadership.

Under the circumstances presented, we find that the court erred in annulling petitioner's U–rating. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the U–rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The record shows a rational basis for the conclusion that petitioner's performance was unsatisfactory, as evidenced by the three formal classroom observation reports describing petitioner's poor performance in class management and engagement of students ( see Matter of Murnane v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 A.D.3d 576, 919 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept.2011] ). While petitioner asserts that she did not receive any mandatory pre-observation conferences before any of her classroom observations, she has not established that the U–rating was made in violation of a lawful procedure or substantial right ( see Matter of Cohn...