New York Court of Appeals, 1985

Morley v. Arricale

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 10, 1985

66 N.Y.2d 665; 486 N.E.2d 824; 495 N.Y.S.2d 966; 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17197

Cases that cite this one

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

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk (District Court, E.D. New York 2011)
New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
United States v. Schmitt (District Court, E.D. New York 1998)
Walls v. Giuliani (District Court, E.D. New York 1996)
Roberts v. Community School Board of Community District No. 6 (N.Y. 1985)
People ex rel. Johnson v. Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility (New York Supreme Court 2015)
Idlewild 94-100 Clark, LLC v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 2010)
Lidakis v. New York City Employees' Retirement System (New York Supreme Court 2010)
Carter v. New York City Employees' Retirement System (New York Supreme Court 2010)
Palm Management Corp. v. Goldstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Hutchinson v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Nelson v. Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Orchard Grove of Dutchess, Inc. v. State (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
Beck v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Renaud v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Oxenhorn v. Fleet Trust Co. (N.Y. 1999)
Vacca v. Town of Southeast (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Grishman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
San Marco Construction Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Rubino v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Meltzer v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
City of Buffalo v. Bucholtz Aviation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Lily Pond Enterprises, Inc. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Smithwick v. Levitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Parkview Associates v. City of New York (N.Y. 1988)

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 order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that determinations as to the qualifications of candidates for pedagogical positions are within the purview of the Board of Education (see, Matter of Council of Supervisory Assns. v Board of Educ., 56 Misc 2d 32, 37-38, affd 31 AD2d 34, revd on other grounds 23 NY2d 458). Absent a showing that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously, the court may not substitute its own judgment for the Board’s on *667matters entrusted by law to the Board’s own specialized knowledge and judgment (Matter of Antell v Board of Educ., 21 Misc 2d 119, 125, affd 10 AD2d 699).

Petitioner has not made any showing that the Board action was arbitrary or capricious. Petitioner failed to produce the requisite "contemporaneous documentation” to validate his administrative assistant time as supervisory experience. The Board therefore found that petitioner lacked the requisite two years of supervisory experience, and therefore acted in compliance with applicable Chancellor’s Regulation C-261 and regulatory Special Circular 30-R. There is a reasonable basis for requiring the supervisory documentation be contemporaneous, in that the review process is made more objective and fair. Further, the competitive selection procedure leading to assignment or appointment of a principal under Special Circular 30-R cannot be subverted without violating NY Constitution, article V, § 6.

Estoppel is not available against a local government unit for the purpose of ratifying an administrative error (the actions of the Community School Board and its Superintendent in appointing petitioner as principal) made without compliance with formally adopted selection standards and procedures (see, Matter of Bloomberg-Dubin v Board of Educ., 82 AD2d 854, 856, affd 56 NY2d 555).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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