New York Court of Appeals, 1983

Marland v. Ambach

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 5, 1983

59 N.Y.2d 711; 450 N.E.2d 228; 463 N.Y.S.2d 422; 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3079

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Winston v. City of New York (2d Cir. 1985)
Winston v. City of New York (2d Cir. 1985)
Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
In re the Arbitration between Mangee & Mamorella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Gould v. Board of Education (N.Y. 1993)
Gould v. Board of Education of the Sewanhaka Central High School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Girard v. Board of Education of City School District of City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re the Arbitration between Unit No. 8251, Rensselaer County Local 842 of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n & City of Troy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)

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 appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Ann T. Mikoll at the Appellate Division (79 AD2d 48).

We would only add that because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the factual determination that petitioner’s retirement was involuntary, the issue is beyond our power to review. (CPLR 5501, subd [b]; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 108, pp 452-455; see, also, Schubtex, Inc. v Allen Snyder, Inc., 49 NY2d 1, 5.) Additionally, with respect to the issue of back pay, contrary to respondents’ assertions, there is no rule prohibiting the courts from awarding back pay to a probationary teacher, such as petitioner, who has been denied contractual procedural rights affecting her ability to contest her discharge from employment. (See Ricca v Board of Educ., 47 NY2d 385, 394.) Under the circumstances present here, the award of back pay was proper.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), *714judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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