Matter of Andrews v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York

Matter of Matter of Andrews v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 00845 Decided on February 7, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department 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 February 7, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6750 100196/10

[*1]In re Dana Andrews, No. Petitioner-Appellant, The

v

Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al., Respondent-Respondent.




Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Melinda G. Gordon of
counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kristin
M. Helmers of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 28, 2010, denying the petition for a declaration that petitioner acquired tenure by estoppel and to compel respondents to reinstate her as a tenured teacher, inter alia, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although petitioner did not receive the 60-day written notice that she was not recommended for tenure, as required by Education Law §§ 2573(1)(a) and 3012(2), and taught for one day after the expiration of her probationary term, we find that she did not acquire tenure by estoppel, since the record shows that respondents did not, "with full knowledge and consent," permit her to continue to teach after her probationary term expired (see Matter of Gould v Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist., 81 NY2d 446, 451 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]). It is undisputed that petitioner was informed in May 2009 that her employment would be discontinued, and when she reported for duty on September 8, 2009, she was told immediately that she had been terminated, and was given no further assignments. Nor was she paid for that day's work. Respondents' actions "speak loudly against any supposition that [they] meant to perpetuate [petitioner's] employment" (Matter of Hagen v Board of Educ. of Cohoes City School Dist., 59 AD2d 806, 806-807 [1977], lv denied 44 NY2d 647 [1978]).

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2012 [*2]

CLERK