vacated - E-Discovery Law Alert

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Index No. 107292/11 For a Judgment pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice <strong>Law</strong> and Rules Petitioner, Argued: 11/1/11 Motion Seq. No.: 00 1 Motion Cal. No.: 135 DECISION & .JUDGMENT -against- CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENNIS WALCOTT, CHANCELLOR of NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, FILED EB 02 2012 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE For petitioner: Bryan D. Glass, Esq. Glass Krakower LLP 11 Perm Plaza New York, NY 1000 1 2 12-537-6859 For respondents: Adam E. Collyer, ACC Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 2 12-708-8688 By notice of petition dated June 22,2011, petitioner brings this Article 75 proceeding seeking an order vacating the hearing officer's opinion and award in the disciplinary proceeding brought against her. Respondents oppose, and by notice of cross motion dated August 24,2011, move pursuant to Education <strong>Law</strong> 5 3020-a and CPLR 404(a), 321 l(a)(7), and 75 11 for an order dismissing the petition. For the following reasons, the petition is granted to the extent indicated and the cross motion is denied. L RACKGROW In 1995, petitioner, a tenured teacher, began working for respondent New York City
Department of Education (DOE). (Pet.). In February of 1997, she began working at Public School (P.S.) 203 in Brooklyn. (Petitioner’s Appendix [Pet. Appx.]). On June 22,2010, a New York City public school student fatally drowned during a field trip to the beach. (Id). On June 23,2010, after the school day was over and petitioner was at home, she posted the following on her Facebook page: “After today, I am thinking the beach sounds like a wonderfd idea for my 5* graders! I HATE THEIR GUTS! They are the devils (sic) spawn!” One of her Facebook friends then posted, “oh you would let little Kwame float away!’’ to which petitioner responded, “Yes, I wld (sic) not throw a life jacket in for a million!!” (Id). After viewing petitioner’s postings, one of petitioner’s Facebook friends, a P.S. 203 colleague, contacted the school’s assistant principal and expressed concern about the propriety of the postings. (Id.). On June 24,2010, the assistant principal showed the postings to the principal, and upon her instruction, contacted the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (XI), which initiated an investigation. (Id,), Sometime before November 15,2010, the SCI investigator assigned to the matter issued his final report, observing, inter alia, that petitioner’s Facebook account is linked to her e-mail address and that he had viewed the postings on her page. (Id). On November 15,2010, SCI issued its final report adopting the investigator’s findings and recommending that petitioner be terminated. (Id.). On November 23,2010, the principal presented petitioner with SCI’s final report. (Id,). Petitioner responded that she did not remember the postings and that a fiiend, whom she named, had access to her Facebook account. (Id.). Shortly thereafter, at the principal’s request, petitioner
Page 1: NNED ON 21212012 ...... - SUPREME C
Page 5 and 6: (Pet., Exh. A), On February 16,2011
Page 7 and 8: petitioner’s friend had decided,
Page 9 and 10: the hearing may apply to vacate the
Page 11 and 12: form an impression of either candor
Page 13 and 14: creation of an “electronic footpr
Page 15: termination is vacated, and the mat

vacated - E-Discovery Law Alert

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?