Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Marilyn CHAPLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered January 30, 2006, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent's determination to terminate petitioner's employment as a New York City schoolteacher, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner's argument that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator failed to adjourn the penalty phase of the hearing (Education Law § 3020-a[4][a] ) until after petitioner's appeal has not been preserved (see Matter of Bevona [Alma Realty], 201 A.D.2d 309, 607 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1994] ). Although petitioner sought and obtained stays of the arbitration proceeding in order to permit the criminal trial to take place prior to the hearing, she failed to ask for a stay of the penalty phase pending appellate review of her criminal conviction. Indeed, in motion practice disputing the preclusive effect of the guilty verdict in her disciplinary proceeding, petitioner argued that a penalty hearing to assess her fitness to teach was appropriate, and her request was granted.
In any event, there was no basis for vacating the award. A criminal defendant does not have a right to stay a related disciplinary proceeding pending the outcome of trial (Matter of Watson v. City of Jamestown, 27 A.D.3d 1183, 810 N.Y.S.2d 697 [2006] ), and a stay is not required for the protection of her constitutional rights.
The penalty of termination was in accord with due process, supported by the record evidence, and is not shocking to our sense of fairness (see Matter of Smith v. Board of Educ. of Wantagh Union Free School Dist., 259 A.D.2d 704, 686 N.Y.S.2d 835 [1999] ). Petitioner's misconduct compromised her ability to function in her job and constituted unacceptable behavior. Acts of moral turpitude committed in the course of public employment are an appropriate ground for termination of even long-standing employees with good work histories (see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280 [2001] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 05, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)