§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Amira Beatty, Respondent,v.City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. Pell v. Board of Education

    34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 5,553 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. Lackow v. Department of Education

    51 A.D.3d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 263 times
    Deciding Article 75 petition to vacate a § 3020-a hearing decision

  4. Asch v. N.Y.C. Bd./Dep't of Educ.

    104 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 53 times
    Hearing officer took into account seriousness of charges against petitioner and lack of prior disciplinary history during 20-year teaching career, and thus penalty not disproportionate to offense

  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. 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

  7. Santer v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3189 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 52 No. 51 05-06-2014 In the Matter of Richard Santer, Respondent, v. Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant. ? In the Matter of Barbara Lucia, Respondent, v. Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant. Case No. 51: George B. Pauta, for appellant. Sherry B. Bokser, for respondent. Case No. 52: George B. Pauta, for appellant. Sherry B. Bokser, for respondent. New York State School Boards Association, amicus curiae. ABDUS-SALAAM Case

  8. 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

  9. Denhoff v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist.

    101 A.D.3d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    2012-12-19 In the Matter of Elizabeth DENHOFF, appellant-respondent, v. MAMARONECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent-appellant. Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, Valhalla, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., of counsel and Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, former of counsel on the brief), for appellant-respondent. Ingerman Smith LLP, Harrison, N.Y. (Emily J. Lucas of counsel), for respondent-appellant. DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, Valhalla, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro

  10. Montanez v. Dep't of Educ. of N.Y.

    110 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    2013-10-10 In re Madelyn MONTANEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents. The Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondents. TOM The Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris