Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Majid Zarinfar, Petitioner-Appellant v. the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


March 13, 2012

IN RE MAJID ZARINFAR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Matter of Matter of Zarinfar v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of NY

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 13, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered January 14, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition to annul respondents' determination terminating petitioner's employment as a probationary teacher and to direct respondents to reinstate his employment with back pay and interest, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner's challenge to his termination as a probationary teacher is time-barred because it was not brought within four months of the effective date of termination (see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763 [1988]; Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 79 AD3d 521 [2010], affd, __ NY3d __, 2012 NY Slip Op 1098 [2012]).

Even if the petition was timely, we would find that it was properly dismissed. Petitioner has failed to establish that the termination, which was based on unsatisfactory ratings and his failure to make recommended improvements, was for "a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith" (Frasier, 71 NY2d at 765; see Curcio v New York City Dept. of Educ., 55 AD3d 438 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 13, 2012

CLERK

20120313

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.