IN RE: Milciades Pepin (2017)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

IN RE: Milciades Pepin, Petitioner–Appellant, v. New York City Department of Education, Respondent–Respondent.

3336

Decided: March 07, 2017

Acosta, J.P., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Webber, JJ.

Milciades Pepin, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for respondent. To the extent petitioner is again challenging the assigned problem code, since he neither alleged nor demonstrated that the problem code was based on impermissible grounds, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata (see e.g. Beth Rifka, Inc. v State of New York, 114 A.D.2d 560, 562 [3d Dept 1985] ). In any event, petitioner's allegation that his inability to obtain a certificate of eligibility has constructively terminated his license fails to state a claim. As the court observed, respondent is not prohibited from considering the past discontinuance of petitioner's probation in assessing his eligibility for employment. Assuming that the sole basis for respondent

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered December 17, 2015, to the extent appealed from, denying so much of the petition as sought to annul the “problem code” assigned to petitioner's employment file, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In April 2011, petitioner commenced an article 78 proceeding to challenge the discontinuance of his probation as an assistant principal, the unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) he received, and the placement of a “problem code” in his employment file after findings of misconduct were made against him. The court granted the petition to the extent of annulling the U-rating and prohibiting the assignment of a problem code insofar as it was supported by the annulled U-rating or unsubstantiated conduct, and otherwise denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Petitioner did not appeal.

Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding in 2014, again challenging the problem code that was placed in his file in 2011 and respondent's alleged constructive termination of his license as a result of the problem code and its impact on his applications for a Certificate of Eligibility for employment in a supervisory capacity.

‘s not issuing petitioner a certificate of eligibility is the problem code, and not a failure to satisfy any other applicable requirements, petitioner has not been deprived of the right to seek employment without due process. Even if his job prospects are more limited, petitioner is not prohibited from seeking a position that does not require a certificate of eligibility, i.e., a non-supervisory position; nor is he prohibited from applying to employers outside respondent's authority.

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