Matter of Zarinfar: The Court Will Not Vacate Termination, Because Petitioner Received a U-Rating While a Probationary Teacher

If you do not have tenure, says Judge Billings in New York State Supreme Court, (affirmed by the First Department Appellate Division Nov. 3, 2016), and you received a U-rating as a probationary teacher, the Court will not agree to give you your job back or grant you tenure by estoppel.

The NYC DOE can effectively stop anyone from getting tenure for any reason because the grievance process is so messed up. Request to NYSUT: fix the grievance process!!!!

What is interesting about Mr. Zarinfar's case is that NYSUT represented him in Court.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Matter of Zarinfar v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

2016 NY Slip Op 07269

Decided on November 3, 2016

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 3, 2016 
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Gische, Kapnick, JJ.

2133 116457/10 

[*1]In re Majid Zarinfar, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Office of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Lori M. Smith of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered July 20, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul respondents' termination of petitioner's probationary employment, effective August 30, 2010, and seeking a declaration that petitioner obtained a tenured teaching position in the Department of Education by estoppel, unanimously modified, on the law, solely to declare that petitioner did not obtain tenure by estoppel, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks credit against the three-year probationary service requirement and tenure by estoppel based on his service in the same subject area at a different school under a different license (Education Law § 2573[1][a]). However, the court correctly found that such credit was not available to him because his initial probationary service was not found "satisfactory," and his employment under that license was terminated (see Matter of Triana v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 47 AD3d 554, 558 [1st Dept 2008]). Moreover, as the court found, a new probationary period commenced under petitioner's mathematics license after his service was terminated under his technology license.

Hence, because petitioner never received tenure, he was subject to termination at any time for any reason without a hearing (see Matter of Gould v Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist., 81 NY2d 446, 451 [1993]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 3, 2016

CLERK