From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Pulver v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1981
80 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

March 2, 1981


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent board of education to reinstate petitioner to a position as a senior high school foreign language teacher, pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 2510 Educ. of the Education Law, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 2, 1980, which dismissed the proceeding upon the ground that petitioner had failed to file a notice of claim. Judgment reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a determination on the merits. The notice of claim requirement in section 3813 Educ. of the Education Law does not apply to a proceeding in which the vindication of the public interest is sought in the enforcement of tenure rights (see Matter of Gross v. Board of Educ., 73 A.D.2d 949; Matter of Tadken v. Board of Educ., 65 A.D.2d 820, mot for lv to app den 46 N.Y.2d 711). The concept of tenure rights includes the reinstatement provisions of section 2510 Educ. of the Education Law (cf. Matter of Silver v. Board of Educ., 46 A.D.2d 427). Mangano, J.P., Cohalan, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Pulver v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1981
80 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Matter of Pulver v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CAROL PULVER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 1981

Citations

80 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Sephton v. Board of Education

Such circumstances cannot be allowed, however, to obscure the fact that advantages which accrue to these…

Matter Piaggone v. Bd. of Educ

We note that Special Term correctly concluded that petitioner was not required to file a notice of claim…