From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Quogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 17, 1992
185 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

August 17, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner was appointed an elementary school teacher in the East Quogue Union Free School District for a three-year probationary period commencing September 1, 1987. Toward the end of her probationary period, the petitioner was advised that the respondent School Superintendent would not be recommending her for tenure. Unsatisfied with the reasons advanced by the School Superintendent for her recommendation, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

We agree with the appellants that no justiciable controversy was submitted to the court. In Matter of Ward v. Bennett ( 79 N.Y.2d 394) the Court of Appeals explained that the concept of "ripeness" within the context of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 "pertains to the administrative action which produces the alleged harm to plaintiff; the focus of the inquiry is on the finality and effect of the challenged action and whether harm from it might be prevented or cured by administrative means available to the plaintiff" (Church of St. Paul St. Andrew v Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510, 521, cert denied 479 U.S. 985; American Ins. Assn. v. Chu, 64 N.Y.2d 379). Here, the School Superintendent's recommendation had not yet attained "finality" since the Board of Education had not yet acted upon it. Moreover, the issue of whether there had been sufficient compliance with the provisions of Education Law § 3031 is one that could be raised in any subsequent proceeding to review an adverse tenure decision.

In any event, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, we find that a letter of the School Superintendent dated July 10, 1990, sufficiently stated the reasons for her recommendation to deny tenure so as to comply with Education Law § 3031 (cf., Matter of Rathbone v. Board of Educ. 47 A.D.2d 172, affd 41 N.Y.2d 825; Matter of Farrell v. Board of Educ., 64 A.D.2d 703). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Quogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 17, 1992
185 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Quogue

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LORAINE S. FUSCO, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 17, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
586 N.Y.S.2d 1012

Citing Cases

Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of the Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist.

2) upon extending the three-year section 3012 Education Law probationary period, workday for workday, what is…

Wall v. Yonkers Board of Education

Under New York law, the Superintendent's recommendation is not final until the Board of Education acts on the…