New York Court of Appeals, 1982

Koch v. Webster Central School District Board of Education

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 11, 1982 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur

57 N.Y.2d 1028; 443 N.E.2d 951; 457 N.Y.S.2d 477; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3859

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Tinney v. Schneider (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Carlan v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Colby v. Siebert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Rudner v. Board of Regents of the New York State Department of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Fitzpatrick v. Board of Education of Mamaroneck Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, without costs.

*1030 Review pursuant to CPLR 7803 (subd 3), whether by Special Term or the Appellate Division, of the discretion exercised by a board of education in dismissing an employee for misconduct is limited to whether the board’s discretion was abused as a matter of law (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234). The discretion exercised in such matters of internal discipline is of a “broader range because of ‘the complexity and sensitiveness of personnel administration in continuing intraorganizational relationships’” (Matter of Di Vito v State of New York, Dept. of Labor, 48 NY2d 761, 763, quoting Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182, 185).

In light of the findings of the hearing officer, confirmed by the appointing officer and as to which petitioner has not sought review, that petitioner persisted in his disruptive conduct despite blunt and adequate warnings and of our review of the record, we cannot say that the board abused its discretion by dismissing petitioner (cf. Matter of Gailband v Christian, 56 NY2d 890).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.