The Judges wrote,
"The record is clear that petitioner was deprived of her substantial rights in the review process culminating in her U-rating."
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials
|Matter of Murray v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.|
|2015 NY Slip Op 06866 [131 AD3d 861]|
|September 22, 2015|
|Appellate Division, First Department|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
| In the Matter of Juanita Murray, Appellant,|
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
Footnote 1:Respondents cite Batyreva v New York City Dept. of Educ. (50 AD3d 283 [1st Dept 2008]), to argue that the Board of Education is not required to include a transcript of a Chancellor's Committee hearing when a proceeding is commenced under CPLR 7803 (3). Batyreva addressed whether that particular proceeding should have been brought pursuant to CPLR 7803 (4), requiring a substantial evidence analysis, and concluded that it was properly brought under the arbitrary and capricious standard (CPLR 7803 ). As to the hearing transcript, which had not been included in the record, we noted that the petitioner had not "demonstrated that a full transcript of the hearing before the Chancellor's Committee . . . was unavailable upon request" (Batyreva at 283-284). However, the evidence in Batyreva included eleven unsatisfactory classroom evaluation reports over the course of two years, and there was no question that the administrative decision to uphold the U-ratings was not arbitrary and capricious. Here, in contrast, while respondents have provided a litany of petitioner's failings, the issue is whether petitioner had notice of the complaints, or was in essence blindsided at the end of the school year. The hearing transcript might have shed some light on this question, as well as on the issue of Mercedes's alleged admission that he lacked the competence to evaluate social workers.
Footnote 2:Additionally, the principal had stated at the administrative hearing that she did not rely on the file letters in making her tenure recommendation, and the petitioner submitted a statement by a current DOE employee who formerly worked at the high school, that the principal pressured assistant principals to give negative U-ratings without observing the teachers (Kolmelat 528-529).