New York Court of Appeals, 1982

Shurgin v. Ambach

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 6, 1982

56 N.Y.2d 700; 436 N.E.2d 1324; 451 N.Y.S.2d 722; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3362

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Piazza v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Rogers v. Board of Education (Conn. 2000)
City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission (New York Supreme Court 1988)
City of Mount Vernon v. State of New York Board of Equalization & Assessment (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Conley v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
In re the Arbitration between Binghamton City School District & Peacock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Dobrin v. Safir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
McMahon v. Sobol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Board of Education of the Greenburgh Central School District No. 7 v. Sobol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Education Alternatives, Inc. v. Mills (New York Supreme Court 1997)
Turco v. Board of Education of the Windsor Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Board of Education of the Sewanhaka Central High School District v. Sobol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Bell v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Cargill v. Sobol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Land v. Commissioner of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Board of Education of Hyde Park Central School District v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Carangelo v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Board of Education, Commack Union Free School District v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Ellis v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Dunnigan v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Phillips v. Maurer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Conley v. Ambach (N.Y. 1984)
Katz v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Zubal v. Ambach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Nisnewitz v. Board of Regents of University of New York (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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s argument — that the commissioner is bound by the factual findings of the hearing panel if supported by substantial evidence — is without merit. Subdivision 5 of section 3020-a of the Education Law provides that “[ejither the employee or the employing board may review the findings of the hearing panel * * * by appeal to the commissioner of education as provided for by article seven of this chapter”. Under article 7 of the Education Law, and in particular section 310 thereof, the Commissioner of Education is given broad authority in terms of reviewing determinations made within the educational system and that authority will not be overturned unless it is arbitrary, capricious or lacks support in the record (Matter of Chauvel v Nyquist, 43 NY2d 48, 52).

Arguably the issues presented to the commissioner on appeals in disputes between boards of education as employers and teachers as employees could be distinguished in *703kind from the broader issues of educational policy customarily confronted in other appeals pursuant to section 310. No such distinction, however, had been made in appeals taken to the commissioner prior to the amendment of section 3020-a by chapter 82 of the Laws of 1977. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that, when the Legislature by that amendment expressly conferred the right to section 310 appeals from the findings of section 3020-a hearing panels, it intended in any way to restrict what had been the commissioner’s broad scope of review.

In the present case the commissioner was fully justified in finding that petitioner had knowingly exhibited a pornographic film to his students. The testimony of three of the witnesses clearly establishes this fact, and the hearing panel offered no explanation for its rejection of that portion of their testimony. Under the circumstances, nothing prevented the commissioner from rejecting the panel’s finding as to petitioner’s knowledge of the film and imposing the sanction of dismissal.

The petitioner’s constitutional question was not presented in the petition and thus is not properly before this court (Matter of Mingo v Pirnie, 55 NY2d 1019).

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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