Opinion
10558 Index 101588/15
12-12-2019
In re Alexander TENENBEIN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Respondents–Respondents, City of New York, Respondent.
The Law Offices of Richard J. Washington, New York (Richard J. Washington of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondents.
The Law Offices of Richard J. Washington, New York (Richard J. Washington of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondents.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered February 15, 2018, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent Department of Education, dated April 27, 2015, which terminated petitioner's probationary employment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner failed to show that his dismissal was in bad faith, as the record demonstrates a history of poor work performance, including tardiness to meetings, insubordination, and ineffective teaching methods (see Matter of Almonte v. Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 132 A.D.3d 505, 17 N.Y.S.3d 707 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Soto v. Koehler , 171 A.D.2d 567, 568, 567 N.Y.S.2d 652 [1st Dept. 1991], lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855, 573 N.Y.S.2d 644, 578 N.E.2d 442 [1991] ). There is no support for petitioner's argument that the unfavorable classroom observations of him were "subjective and meritless," and his claims regarding Civil Service Law § 75–b fail because respondent demonstrated an independent basis supporting the discontinuance of petitioner's probationary employment (see Roens v. New York City Tr. Auth., 202 A.D.2d 274, 275, 609 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept. 1994] ).
Petitioner further fails to show that any conduct or comments by respondent's staff members were based on his alleged learning disability. The comments made by staff members did not reference his disability (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 N.Y.3d 295, 308, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 [2004] ). Since petitioner failed to state a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, his discrimination claims also fail under the federal and state anti-discrimination laws (see Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc. , 92 A.D.3d 29, 46, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 811, 945 N.Y.S.2d 645, 968 N.E.2d 1001 [2012] ).