39 Cited authorities

Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 15,717 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"
Board of Regents v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972) Cited 14,656 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
470 U.S. 532 (1985) Cited 6,884 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the tenured public employee was "entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story"
Goldberg v. Kelly
397 U.S. 254 (1970) Cited 4,948 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits
Matter of Featherstone v. Franco
95 N.Y.2d 550 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 385 times
Affirming rejection of Article 78 case
Arons v. Jutkowitz
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9309 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 210 times
Holding that state law allowing ex parte interviews did not conflict with HIPAA
Matter of Field Delivery Serv
66 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 378 times
Stating that agency decision "which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious"
Matter Gould v. Board of Educ
81 N.Y.2d 446 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 190 times
Finding tenure by estoppel based on "petitioner's continuing service as a teacher in the District's employ"
Matter Simpson v. Wolansky
38 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 215 times
Hearing Officer's consideration of evidence of which employee was not apprised
Matter of Montauk Improvement v. Proccacino
41 N.Y.2d 913 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 120 times
In Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino (41 N.Y.2d 913), the Court of Appeals held: "'[A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination * * * which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.

In the Matter of Roxanne Adrian, Appellant,v.Board of Education of City School District of City of Niagara Falls et al., Respondents.

39 Cited authorities

Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."

Holding that the tenured public employee was "entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story"

Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits

Affirming rejection of Article 78 case

Holding that state law allowing ex parte interviews did not conflict with HIPAA

Stating that agency decision "which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious"

Finding tenure by estoppel based on "petitioner's continuing service as a teacher in the District's employ"

Hearing Officer's consideration of evidence of which employee was not apprised

In Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino (41 N.Y.2d 913), the Court of Appeals held: "'[A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination * * * which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.