§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Ericka Bolt, Respondent,v.New York City Department of Education, Appellant.

Brief

16 Cited authorities

  1. Pell v. Board of Education

    34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 5,551 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

  2. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

    89 N.Y.2d 214 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 410 times
    Holding that CPLR § 214 applies to a cause of action to recover payments of first-party benefits by the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, a statutorily created body, against the insurer of a vehicle who denied no-fault coverage

  3. City Sch. Dist. of the New York v. McGraham

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8228 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 107 times

    2011-11-17 CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. Colleen McGRAHAM, Respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath, Cheryl Payer and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant. Maria Elena Gonzalez, New York City, and Richard E. Casagrande for respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath, Cheryl Payer and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant. Maria Elena Gonzalez, New York City, and Richard

  4. In the Matter of Hegarty v. Board of Education

    5 A.D.3d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that where the parties are forced to engage in compulsory arbitration, such as pursuant to Section 3020-a, judicial review under Article 75 requires that the award be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence in the record

  5. Cipollaro v. New York City Department of Education

    83 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 32 times
    In Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 83 AD3d 543 (1st Dep't. 2011), a teacher's termination was upheld because the Hearing Officer found that the teacher had "knowingly defrauded respondent of $98,000 over a two-year period by enrolling two of her children in New York City public schools when she and her family lived in Westchester County..."

  6. Harris v. Mechanicville Dist

    45 N.Y.2d 279 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 81 times

    Argued June 6, 1978 Decided July 11, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, GUY A. GRAVES, J. Ivor R. Moskowitz, Bernard F. Ashe and Richard E. Casagrande for appellant. Thomas D. Nolan for respondent. Chief Judge BREITEL. Petitioner, a tenured teacher, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeks to annul a determination of respondent school district dismissing him on two charges of insubordination (see Education Law, § 3020-a, subd 5). Special Term

  7. Principe v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8568 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 21 times

    2012-12-13 In the Matter of Peter PRINCIPE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant. Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant. Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent. On review of submissions

  8. Schaubman v. Blum

    49 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 73 times
    Referring to DSS-provider relationship as "contractual" in nature

  9. In the Matter of Diefenthaler v. Klein

    27 A.D.3d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 21 times

    7935. March 23, 2006. Determinations of respondent Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, dated April 8, 2004, which, based upon findings of an Administrative Law Judge, sustained certain specifications of misconduct against petitioners, rejected the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to suspend each petitioner for 25 days without pay, and instead ordered the immediate termination of petitioners' employment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent that the penalty

  10. Patterson v. City of N.Y.

    96 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    2012-06-19 In re Terri PATTERSON, Petitioner–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih Sadrieh of counsel), for appellants. Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih Sadrieh of counsel), for appellants. Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for respondent. Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New