Matter of Roberts v Board of Educ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Roberts v Board of Educ. 2012 NY Slip Op 30972(U) April 11, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 113029/11 Judge: Alexander W. Hunter Jr Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] 4NED ON411212012 - SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY Justlce Index Number - 1130291201 1 ROBERTS, LILLIAN INDEX NO. vs. MOTION DATE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. ARTICLE 78 The followlng papers, numbered Ito , were read on thls motlon tolfor Notlce of MotionlOrder to Show Cause - Affldavits - Exhlbits Answering Affldavlta - Exhlblts Replylng Affldavib Upon the foregoing papers, It is ordered that this motlon Is UNFILED JUDGMENT This k l a m n t has not been entered by Crwa c* Dated: I. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: DISPOSE^ EXCASE MOTION IS: (? GRANTED ................................................ DENIED 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION uGRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER i?SETTLE ORDER [ DO NOT POST ET]FlDUCl1RY APPOINTMENT J uREFERENCE [* 2] Petitioners, -against- In h i s hyhrid procccdiiig, the application by pctitioiicrs li)r ;iii order pursumt t o C1.1 .1 ..li. Article 78 and h r 21 declaratory judgiiiciit pursuant to C .l).l,.l<. , dcclxing respoiidcnts 3001 dctcrniinalioii ko tcr.tiiiiia.te642 employeus i n tlic litles ol school aidc, health aidc, Ihmily worker, community associate. nnd parent cooI-dinaior as arhilrary, capricious, and in b:td faith and to declare respondrnls delcriiiinatioii to implement a 3 2 6 % ) reduction rill schools :is violative of Ikliicatioii 1,aw ij 25OO-r(g) is clcnicd. SSO+ICB In 3007, the Fair Student 1:uiiding ( FSE ) program was established to providc New Yorli C ily scliools will1 1 (XWO ol lhe $3.2 billioii in additional lunding by 201 1 . To clale. New York C ity schools have orily rcccived $ I .8 hillion of tlic $3.2 billion. I<cspc~iidciits assert that the currcnl liscal year buclgct coiitairis ;I $2 billion increased revenue ci~mmitiiioritl - mNew York io City to cover the loss of$853 niillion in F cdcrnl stiiiidus liinds and the Statc C; $81 2 million in education cuts. Ilndcr t-he l;Sl; program, formulas were deviscd lo clctcrniinc how much iunding c d i school shoLild rcccivc. I lo\vcver, duc to tlic lack 01 Stale liinding, s o ~ n c schools d o not [* 3] reccivc the money calculated h i * them urider the foriiiLi1:is. At the same tinic, tlicre are ;I number of schools thal ;ire above formiila. Tlie Indcpcndent Huclget Oftice has dcterminccl that changing these schools hiidgets to comport with tlic IiSF progrwi must be clonc gradtially so as to not clcst Ai I i7,c t Iiem. 1)cspitc [lie acldition of C ity dollars, rcsponclent the Board of Education d.b.a. tlic 1)epartmcnt or E:,ducatiunofthe City ol Ncw Yorlc (L IX)l< ) still ueeded to make additional school budgct rcductions. I he IJnitcd Federation ul 1 cachers (. [il; T ) agreed lo ciicl all leaclicr sabbaticals h r one year and to rehriii tlic Abscnt l cachcr Iicservc pool, wliicli would reduce sukstilutc teachcr costs. These U I T cc~riccssio~isI - C ~ I cspected to s ~ qy-m)xiiiiatcly $57 e iiiillioti. As a result of the Program to I :liiiiinatc the Gap and increased lax reventie pro.jcclions, tlic direct cut to schuol hudgcts was rt diiccd li-om $370 milliori to $ 1 78 tnillion. T hc I)OE evaluatcs thc needs of cach scliool and calculatcs what its b d g e t sliodd bc givcii the liiiiilatioiis of its ovcrdl hiidgct. Tliesc rccomiiiciidntioris are tlieii p r c s ~ n tto ~ i I:)b;P ~ the h r iiiodiiication or adoption. l hcreai tcr,the principals ol cach school delerniine how lo use tlic liiiids t h y reccivc to best meel the needs of their studcnts. On .lune 27, 20 I I , tlic I aiiel on I<ducational Policy ( PEl ) reviewed and adopted [lie 0 1 an ciiiergcncy basis. Ihe D O H administrators tried to consider and nuke all 1 f easiblc and rcasoiiable efhrts to ciisuix tin cqtiititbl~ allocation of liinciing. LJIliiiiatcly, llic PEP reduced Lhc budget hy .Y; I78 million which amounled to 311 school budgets hcitig rcduced by 3.26%. fhc C iiy Council approved the Imdget oil .Itrnc 29, 201 I . On Aiigiis1 17, 201 I , the PliP adopted the liudgel t h a l have txcii previously approved on all emcrgcncy basis. On October 7. 20 1 I , rcspundcnt 1)OE cfl ccled layol l s in twcnly-four titles rcprwentud by sevcii dil lrcnt labor II ni on s. pruposcd budgct Petitioners argue h i t ruspondcnts dctci.tiiiniitioii to terminate 642 employccs is in ducation Law tj XOO-r(g), which they maintain I-equires h e C li;incellor to adopt budgcts and iiiiplciiicii~ rcduclions in an equitable maliner that considcrcd the nccds ol cacli commiinity. Pclilioiicrs asscrt that the 13017 failed lo consider other viable alternatives before choosing tcriiiination. Local 172 met with the 1)OE and proposed: 1) tlic rccoupiiiciit of thc l; I6,5 million in Tax I .cvy Funds over Forintila; 2) reducing tlic iiurnber o1 hours that these i employees workccl each day; and 3) two furlough da.ys on the days when school aidcs report for work but whcn iio slutieiits are in attcndl-lncc. Uontrary to 111c IX)E s assertion, pctitiuncrs contciid thnt Districl C ouiicil 37 ( r3C 37 ) was not the only mion to re.ject tlic City s proposal io tap into the iinioii 1ie:alth liind. Moreover, peLitioiicrs argue that the DOE tiiisled principals into helicviiig Ilia1 parenl coordinalors wuuld 17c csccssed, wlicre an individual kccps his or her joh m d their s;ilary is funded by i1 central budgct instead ol a school-bascd budget, instead 01 hcii i g t criii i iiat ctl . l arcnl coordinator and pctitioncr Reg,ina Diidlcy s position was eliiiiinaled in Octobcr 201 1 , I n Scptembcr 201 I , Principid I<oclian cliaiiged tlic title of school aiclc Cdwarth Morris to commuriity ass~)ciate.I ctitioneI-s :isscrt h a t MI-. Moi-ris is pcrlbrming the same riinctioiis as a pireii t coordinator. l arcnl coordinator and pctilioncr Eva C accras position was elim i na.ted i ii 2 [* 4] October 20 I I . I riiicipal Thcocloro hircd so~iico~ic to pcrforni the saIne fiinctioiis as well as elsc [oiir other Iiircs belwcen August and S c p t e m I w 20 1 I . I elitioiicrs maintain that Iherc havc been ovcr 000 litlc changes within tlic Lociil.373 mcmhcrship i n Yeptcmbcr iinci October of201 I which suggests that principals changed titlcs o f I:,i\/oi~c.clcmployecs to retain them iIi iicw titlcs. Petitioners argue that tcriniiiating eniployecs and hiring new cmployecs IO pcrlbrni the si11iic duties is indicativc ol bacl hilli. 1 laving iiinds availablc and iriiplemcnting ovcr 600 layoffs is ;I Iso i nd icnt i vc or had lhi tli. Respcmdciits opposc the petition i n its cntircty and argue that pctitioners have failed to esiablish that the 1)OE is in violation of a n y IiIw and Iriils lo establish that its detcrimiliation to adopt ;I budget which resulted in a reduction of iilrids to .r;choolswas arbitrary. capricious, o r donc in bad hitli. licspondents maintain that I ducation I iiw ZOO-r(g) is inapplicable in thc instaiil proceeding bccausc thc tlnal budgct that was adopted by Ilie Cily C ouncil and the Mayor did n o t reduce o r increase the hiidget previoiisly adopted by the PEP cor DOE. licspondents assert that thcy considcred I)C 37 s proposals. howevcr they felt tlial tliesc proposals wo~dci do more 1i;iriii than good to all I)OI sliid~111s. I etilioners Ii;1vc also failed lo establish that the layol li were cxecutcd i n l m i faith withiii tlie iiarr(ow meaning oi the Civil Service I ,aw, because tlicrc was a bona lidc h a t i c i d rcmoii in cl l ectuaiing the layoffs. Finally, respondents arguc hat DOE dccisioiis rcgardiiig thc s M i n g . siipcrvision, and the allocation 01 resnurccs are noi arbitrary and capricious aiid arc not jiisticiablc claims. In reply, pctitioiiers argue that thcy have demonstratcd that thc layoffs wcrc donc in had faith to rctaliatc ngaiiist thc iinions. II thcre was 110 Imna tidc financial ruasuii for lhc termiriatiori, 110 savings were rcalizcd, or s c m c o ~ i c was hircd 10 replace tlic teriiiinatcct cmploycc. ihen thc tcmiinatioii was doiic in bud faith. Petitioners asscrt that therc was no cconomic jiisli lication li)r the tciminations especially in lighl ol otlicr availablc options si~ch reducing as the number of hours Ihr thc school aidcs. klitioners also argue that the impact of thc schoolbased budget ciils werc not considered and thcrefore was ;I viulation of Educaiion I,aw $ 2590r( g). I,astly7 pctiiioners contcnd that as taxpayers and rcsidcnts of tht: C ity 01- New York. thcy havc a vestcd intercst i n the allocation of the 1)OE s liiiids. I hey maintain that h c N ) E terminated the employment of ovcr 600 people withotit rcgard to thc facts. As B policy matlcr, courls will iiol iiitcrlcrc in arcas that it is ill-eqiiipped l o iindcl-take and wlicrc another branch ofgovcriimcnt is iiiore suited to tlie [ash. Jnncs v. Reamc, 4S N.Y.2d 402 (1978). IAlbscnt ;i showiiig o f m ultrii vires act or a Liiliire to perl orm ;i requircd act, the dcc i s i oII cjI a s choo 1 c i fli c i a I i ii vo 1vi n g a n i ti I1crc n 11y ad ti1i i i i s i rat i v e prows s w ti i c h is 1111i q iic1y part ol t1iaI oIl?cial s liirictiori i l l i d cxpcrtisc, prescrits :i noii,justiciable conlroversy. . Matter of Parent Tcachcr Awn. of P.S. 124M v. Board of Educ. of City School Ilist. of City of N.Y., 138 A . L 2 d 108, 113 ( I Dcpt. 1 188). ~ . I . 1)ccisioiis concerniqg the nlloc;atioii of sc:irce scliool resources and school staffing lcvels arc Id1 io tlic discretion dhd. rin[ipd ,jutlgmcnL o f school aclministralors. &,Matter of Ncw York - 6 ,State Inspcction, Sec. & Law Enforcenicnt Empls., Ilist. Council 82, AF SCMli,, API.,-C:IO v. Cuorno, 64 N.Y.2d 233 (1984); Matter of Hokhair v. Board of Educ. of the Cih o f N . Y . , [* 5] ( 1 078). Therclbre, (his coui? l i d s that pctitioncrs clainis regarding 11ie 1)OE s decision to rcduce all school hiidgets by 3.20% and to teriiiinate 642 cmployccs arc nonjusticiable. Ilasccl on Ihc li,regoing, this cow1 nced not delcnili ne whether rcspoivknts dclormiiiation was nrbilrary ancl capricious. I Inwcvcr, it sliould bc notcd that a detcrmiiialion is arhi t r x y and capricious whcn it is tiiade without sound hasis i n reason and is gcnerally talccn witho\tl regard L lhc licts. & Mattcr of Pcll v. Bd. of 1Sduc. of Union P rce School Dist. o No. 1 of Towns 0 1 Scarsdiile & Mamarnneck, Westchcster County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231 ( 1 974). I ~ v c n tlio~igl~ court niight have decided diil crently werc it in llie a g c i ~ y position, tlic s the court may no[ upscl thc agency s dcleriiiinatioii in the abscnce ol a fiiidiiig, nut supported by this rccord, t l i a l the dcieri-niiiation hsd 110rational basis. In the Matter o f Mid-State Met. Chrp. v. Ncw York City Conciliation and Appeals Hd., 112 A.D.2d 72, 76 (1 1)cpt. 1985). r licrcli)rc, h i s court s role is liniited IO whcther or not rcspondciits final detcrniination was ~ ~ ~ without 21 rational basis. a d c - 1 It niust bc noted that ihc DOE did iiol ordcr thc layoll-k ol tlie niorc than six hundrcd employces. Instcad, thc DOE rcduccd its budget al ler carcfill consideration and each school s p r i I i c i pa I 111;id e ac1.i ushi C TI s lo i h c ir rcs pec t i ve schoo Is :is a res u It. A I Ihoug h petitio 11 riia i ti I i i ~ ers ai h i t h c y havc [lettcr iclcas on how to savc ti-runey, that is riot cnough to rciider an agciicy s dctci.miri~ition arbitrary aid capricious. I n addition, petitioners have fiiilcd to establish thal the as layofl s:wcre clonc in bad fiiililli ancl that rcspoiiclcnts Iiavc IBilcd to comply with I-idtication Law 9 3SOO-r( g). Accordingly, it is hcreby, AI)JIJI)C;ED tlial the petition is denicd, with costs and disbursements to respondcnts; and i t is iiirthcr; UNFKED JUDGMENT This judgment has not been entered by the County Clerk and notice of entry cannot be served based hereon. Tg obtain entry, caunsei or authonzd rsgremntatiye must appqq in pereon at the J u m qt c,cO e s4 k ( R m 4 v k . 1 14w.. I:N X I < : - - .I, S.(

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.