KRINSKY v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2006)

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

Richard KRINSKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent-Respondent.

Decided: April 20, 2006

BUCKLEY, P.J., MARLOW, SULLIVAN, GONZALEZ, SWEENY, JJ.

Edward Wolf, Bronx, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2004, which denied petition seeking to vacate an arbitrator's decision terminating his employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Applying the applicable standards in Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR 7511 (see Matter of Hegarty v. Board of Educ., 5 A.D.3d 771, 773 N.Y.S.2d 611 [2004] ), we discern no basis for disturbing the determination. Contrary to petitioner's suggestions, the hearing officer considered the entire record in reasonably concluding petitioner had engaged in conduct over a two-year period that constituted insubordination toward the administration at the school where he taught, and justified his unsatisfactory ratings. In light of the litany of specifications proven against him, the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience (id.).

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

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network