IN RE: Paul Bridgwood (2015)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

IN RE: Paul Bridgwood, Petitioner–Appellant, v. City of New York, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

1501 1

Decided: May 05, 2015

Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse, Kapnick, JJ.

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2013, denying the petition to annul respondents' determination, dated September 5, 2012, which sustained an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010–2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner's claim that respondents violated Department of Education Bylaw § 4.3.3 based on the absence at the hearing of the assistant principal responsible for three of the four unsatisfactory observation reports is unpreserved since he did not raise this issue before the agency (see Matter of Seitelman v. Lavine, 36 N.Y.2d 165, 170 [1975] ). In any event, respondents' determination had a rational basis as it was supported by the testimony of the school principal, who conducted a formal observation of petitioner's performance and reached the same conclusions as the assistant principal (see Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011] ).

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

DEPUTY CLERK

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Out of date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