From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Murane v. Department of Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4566.

March 22, 2011.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered December 31, 2009, which denied the petition seeking to, among other things, annul respondent's determination terminating petitioner's employment as a probationary teacher and to direct respondent to expunge petitioner's year-end unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) and reinstate her employment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Stewart Lee Karlin of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.


The court properly determined that petitioner's challenge to her termination as a probationary teacher is time-barred. Such a challenge must be brought within four months of the effective date of termination, and the petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies does not toll the four-month statute of limitations ( see CPLR 217; Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 79 AD3d 521, 522). The effective date of petitioner's termination was July 26, 2007. Accordingly, her petition, filed on July 17, 2009, was untimely.

While respondent concedes that the petition is not time-barred to the extent that it seeks review of the U-rating ( see Matter of Andersen v Klein, 50 AD3d 296, 297), petitioner has failed to show that the rating was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith. The detailed observation reports by the principal and assistant principal, describing petitioner's poor performance in class management, engagement of students, and lesson planning, provided a rational basis for the rating ( see id.). Petitioner's contention that the principal was biased against her is speculative and insufficient to establish bad faith ( see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 AD3d 320).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Matter of Murane v. Department of Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Matter of Murane v. Department of Educ

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JENNIFER MURNANE, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION…

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

Date published: Mar 22, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2054
919 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Zakin v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The…

Weber v. City of New York

Taken together, these documents and the testimony presented at the hearing were sufficient to support the…