Wayne Crawford Jefferson sued the NYC Department in Queens Supreme Court to get his teaching license back when his license was permanently taken as a result of his retirement while charged with 3020-a.
In NYC, the procedural errors alone, I think, should be a factor for review of
Chancellor's Regulation C-205.
I am not an attorney, just an avid reader of the rules, regulations and laws of the Education Law 3020-a process. It stinks.
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 Jefferson v New York
City Bd. of Educ.
|
2017 NY Slip Op 00166
|
Decided on January 11, 2017
|
Appellate Division, Second
Department
|
|
|
This opinion is
uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official
Reports.
|
Decided on January 11, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second
Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SHERI S. ROMAN
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2015-11195
(Index No. 6002/15)
[*1]In the Matter of Wayne Crawford Jefferson,
appellant,
v
New York City Board of Education, respondent.
Wayne Crawford Jefferson, Hazleton, PA, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela
Seider Dolgow and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner's New York City teaching license, the
petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and
judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler J.), entered
August 3, 2015, as, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the
proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as
appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner was employed by the New York City Department of
Education, sued herein as the New York City Board of Education (hereinafter the
DOE), as a teacher until he retired on October 27, 2014. At the time he
retired, charges were pending against him pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a.
Pursuant to paragraph 24 of New York City Board of Education Chancellor's
Regulation C-205, the petitioner's New York City teaching license was
permanently terminated since charges were pending against him pursuant to
Education Law § 3020-a at the time he retired. The petitioner was apprised of
the termination of his license by an attorney from his union.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article
78 to compel the DOE to reinstate his teaching license. The DOE moved to
dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and
dismissed the proceeding, and denied the motion as academic. The petitioner
appeals.
"A special proceeding under CPLR article 78 is available to
challenge the actions or inaction of agencies and officers of state and local
government" (Matter of Gottlieb v City of New
York, 129 AD3d 724, 725; see Matter of Hollander v Suffolk
County Dept. of Social Servs., Child Support Enforcement Bur., 140 AD3d 1064, 1065). When a petitioner
challenges an administrative determination that was not made after a
quasi-judicial hearing, the court must consider whether the determination was
made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or
arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of
Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725; Matter of JP & Assoc. Corp. v
New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 122 AD3d 739, 739). A determination is
arbitrary and capricious when it is without sound basis and reason and
generally taken without regard to the facts (see Matter of Wooley v New York
State Dept. of Correctional [*2]Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280; Matter of Pell v
Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and
Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of
Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725).
Here, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition
and dismissed the proceeding since the plain language of paragraph 24 of New
York City Board of Education Chancellor's Regulation C-205 provides that a New
York City teaching license shall be permanently terminated if the license
holder retires while charges are pending pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a.
The petitioner's contention that he was unaware of this regulation, which was
issued on September 5, 2000, and posted online on the DOE's website, is
unavailing, as he was "deemed to be on notice of the DOE Chancellor
regulation[s]" (Matter of Benjamin v New York City
Dept. of Educ., 119 AD3d 440,
441; see Salamino v Board of Educ. of
the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y.,
85 AD3d 617, 619).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the
petition and dismissed the proceeding.
RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne
Agostino
Clerk
of the Court
