§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Terrell Williams, Respondent,v.City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. State

    75 N.Y.2d 175 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 159 times
    Holding that New York's lemon law is a breach of contract action, where the replacement remedy is analogous to the equitable remedy of specific performance and the refund remedy is the equivalent of an action for rescission, in the context of whether or not a lemon law action invokes the right to trial by jury

  3. Saunders v. Rockland Bd. of Coop

    62 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 44 times
    Deciding Article 75 petition to vacate a § 3020-a hearing decision

  4. Principe v. New York City Dep't of Educ.

    94 A.D.3d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Hearing Officer failed to consider all of the circumstances and relevant evidence, and viewed the incidents in isolation and divorced from the context in which they occurred, thus likely influencing his determination that petitioner should be terminated. Lesser sanctions are available

  5. 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

  6. In re Weinstein

    19 A.D.3d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 25 times

    5510. June 9, 2005. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 16, 2004, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5) and CPLR 7511 to vacate an impartial hearing officer's determination, dated March 6, 2003, finding that petitioner teacher committed corporal punishment and that there is just cause for terminating his employment, granted the petition to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent for imposition of a lesser penalty and

  7. In re Binghamton City School District

    33 A.D.3d 1074 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 21 times
    In Binghamton, the Third Department correctly noted, I believe, that a court's authority to overturn an arbitration award based on public policy grounds includes the state's compelling interest in protecting our children.

  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. Solis v. Department of Education

    30 A.D.3d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 18 times
    In Matter of Solis v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York. 30 AD3d 532, supra, the hearing officer determined that the teacher had placed a student in a choke-hold, and terminated the teacher's employment.

  10. Haas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

    106 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    In Matter of Haas v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 106 AD3d 620, 621 (1 st Dep't. 2013), a penalty of termination was upheld "in light of petitioner's egregious misconduct of kicking a kindergarten student with special needs and then directing her other impressionable students not to discuss what they had observed."