Matter of Koutros v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Koutros v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y. 2015 NY Slip Op 04732 Decided on June 4, 2015 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 June 4, 2015
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, JJ.
14868 104279/12

[*1] In re Nicholas Koutros, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

The Department of Education of the City of New York, Respondent-Respondent.



Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Stewart Lee Karlin of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 3, 2013, to the extent appealed from, denying the petition seeking to annul respondent the Department of Education of the City of New York's (DOE) determination, dated July 2012, which terminated petitioner's employment, effective July 1, 2012, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination to terminate petitioner's employment based on his lack of a proper teaching certificate was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757-758 [1991]). Petitioner failed to show that, in July 2012, when DOE terminated his

employment, he had been retroactively certified (see Matter of Smith v Board of Educ. of Wallkill Cent. School Dist., 65 NY2d 797 [1985]). Because petitioner's employment was terminated for failing to maintain minimum qualifications, and not for disciplinary reasons, he was not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (see Matter of New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. v Lanterman, 14 NY3d 275, 282 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 4, 2015

CLERK



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.