IN RE: Vijay VERMA (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 23, 2024, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award terminating petitioner's employment, and granted respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitrator's determination that petitioner's teaching performance was deficient during the relevant three-year period was supported by adequate evidence, including the testimony of school administrators and documentation.  The determination was also rational, and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Jackson v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York, 184 A.D.3d 500, 501, 124 N.Y.S.3d 180 [1st Dept. 2020];  Matter of Johnson v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of City of N.Y., 171 A.D.3d 548, 98 N.Y.S.3d 573 [1st Dept. 2019];  Lackow v. Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 A.D.3d 563, 367, 859 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2008]).  The record includes written observational reports and testimony from school administrators and an independent peer evaluator demonstrating inadequate teaching, efforts at remediation, and lack of improvement over the three-year period.  The evidence also showed that petitioner was “unwilling or unable to implement suggestions” despite substantial professional development opportunities (Matter of Benjamin v. New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 105 A.D.3d 677, 678, 964 N.Y.S.2d 139 [1st Dept. 2013]).

Under the circumstances, the penalty of termination is “not shocking to one's sense of fairness” (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974];  Matter of Johnson, 171 A.D.3d at 548–549, 98 N.Y.S.3d 573).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.