Matter of Wu v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Wu v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ. 2012 NY Slip Op 32883(U) December 3, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 102837/2012 Judge: Joan B. Lobis 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. SCANNED ON 121612012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PART 6 Justice Index Number 102837/2012 WU, AMY C . vs. NYC BOARDIDEPT. OF EDUCATION SEQUENCE NUMBER 001 INDEX NO. MOTION D T MOTION SEQ. NO. VACATE STAY/ORDER/JUDCMENT --_- - - - -- &,were read on this m o t i o d f o r dC1CLlhp. Notice of MotioniOrder to Show Cause -Affidavits - Exhibits Petdh The following papers, numbered I to \ Answering Affidavits A - Exhibits n(b;+rcdim [J(*34/cI INo(s). IN$$?? Replying Affidavits INOW. % 1- 6 -1 7 (q Upon the foregoing papers, it i ordered that this motion is s , J.S.C. 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRlATE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ......................... ..MOTION I : S ................................................ d CASE DISPOSED uGRANTED 0DENIED 0SETTLE ORDER DO NOT POST NON-FINAL DEPOSITION nGRANTED IN PART OTHER LJ SUBMIT ORDER CI FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT nREFERENCE [* 2] m SUl RKMB COURT O F T H K S l A l EOb NKW YORK NEW Y O R K CIOUN I Y: 1AS PARI 6 x ___-________________-------------------------------------------------- I N n i l MATTIX A M Y c . Wli, ot riw APPLICATION OF I ct itio oer, Ikcision, Order, ami J & n .u L m Petitioner, Amy C . Wu, proccccliiigpro sc, pctitioiis under Section 75 I I ortlic C. ivil I mcticc Law aiicl liiilcs and Section 30204.5 ol the Ikiucation L,aw Tor an order vacating an arhttratioii decision, That decision, tinted M a y I O , 2012, (L)ctcnniiintion), foiind Petitioner had engageti iii conduct unbecoming a tcnclicr and neglect ofduty, as charged by Respondent, the Hoar-d of lltlucatioii ol the C ity School llisti-ict o T the C ity oTNcw Y ork (UOL). The arbitintor i m p o w l a one ycai- suspciisioii wiilioiit pay. Iicspondcnt ~ I ~ O S S - I I I C ~ VtoSdismiss WU Spetition, as amendcd, C wider C P I..R Riilc 32 I I (a)(7) on the grounds that the petition l ails to statc ii C;ILISC of action. For the l ollowing I-exons, the ci-oss-motion to dismiss Wu s petition is gi-anted,and llic pctitioii to vacatc t Iic :ii-bi t Irat i ot i aw ai-d i s di sm i ssed . In support of its cross-motion to dismiss Wu s amended petition, the 1301; has attached the :iil)itr:il rccord ;is cxtiibits to its iiiotioii. 1 11~facts set foi-th below i11-eglcaneci from thai arbitral rcccird, which consisted of scvcral days of Iicarings, witnesses, and exhibits. I ctitioncr has been cinploycd hy liespondent as a teacher since 1908. I n 2004, [* 3] fulluw~ng1 1 arbtl ration proceeding, slic was found to have engaged in pooi- classrooiii management a and conducting an itl~iP1~i.oPi.i"tc discussion with studcnts and was pcnnll7cd with three lnoliths' suspension witliout pay. In 30 10-20 1 1 , Petitioner co-taiight kiiidcrgartcn nt P.S IS8 Wai-wick School. Wu received ;I satisficloi-y pcrf~i-ii~;incc rating for the school yc;ir. Ncvci-thclcss, in the coitrse of that S L ' I I ~ C I I ycar, shc did receivc a warning letter froiii licr princip;il relating to an incident tlint occurred on 1)cccmhci- I O , 20 I O . I'lic I-ccord slnows that WII prevented ;I student h i l i leaving the bathroom hy holding the Ixitht-ooiii door closcd. 'I'hc f'ollow~ngschool year, Wu co-taught lirst gradc. Several iiicidcnts arose that hecame part ol'tlie charges in the arhiti-al pi-occcdings irlvolvcd in this case. 0 1November 2, 20 1 I , 1 otic of Wu's studciits was tapping other students with the teacher's pointer. Aftcr Wu rctricvctl the pointer, slic grabbed tlic student by the student's wrist atid dragged the student o n the Iloor. Later that montli, 011 Novcmbcr 18, 201 I , the school principal observed two o T Wu's students in llic liallwny. When the principal returned them to thc class, shc foiiiicl that thc childrcn wcrc not engaged in instruction. W u acknowlcdgcd tlic lapse aiid explniiicd that, at the time ofthe incident, she had bccn nssisting the sulxtitiitc tcnchcr with 1c:imrng the children's names. Wu reccived warning letters Tor cach o1'these Novemher 20 I I incidents. The next month, ;I third incident arose. A p;iretit coordinator iqwr-ted that near the cafeteria slic Iiad ohscrvcci Wu gi-abbing ;I stucicnt by thc student's hand. When Wii released the [* 4] studciit, tlic stiidciit fell onto ;i radiatoi- :ind slid to the floor In hi:, l'xtlinditig, the arbitrator rcjcctcd tlic testimony rclating to the radiator hut otherwise foirnd tlie cii-cuiiistnnccs ;IS alleged to havc l ~ c c n cs t a b I 15 11cd . In .j:iiiii;iry 20 12, ciisciplinai-y cliiirgcs wcrc filed ;:igaiiist WLII-cla~ing all of these to incidences. Following several days or hearings 011 tlie charges, including tcstiiiioiiy by Wu and otliciwitncsscs, as wcll as cxhihits, the ai-bitrator ruled that the charges had becn suhstaiitintcd to the extent that they siippol-tcd ;I linding o f ~ o n d ~ iunbecoming ;i tcaclicr and ncglcct of duty. He i-cLicctcd ct thc L3OE's contention tliat Wu's conduct constituted corporal punishment. He liirthcr i-cLicctcd ROE'S the proposed relief' seeking dismissal. liistcad he imposed ;I lesser penalty (1m 1' c year's suspension without pay iind ordered thal WLIrcccivc training in proper use ol' physicill 1-cstraint and classrooiii mari age me 11. t Wu appc;ils thc ai-hitration dccisioii undcr Education I,aw Scction 3020-a.5. Scction 3020-u.5 ~illows ciiiployccs to nppcnl adverse decisions by applying to this Court mdcr Section 75 I I of the C.I'.L.II. lo vacate 01-modify the decision. T n her petition, as ;imended, WLIclaiiiis that the xlitrator's lindings arc unsupported. She further claims that the Derminution lacks ;I hasis in law, is arbitrary anti capricioiis, inyym)priate and excessive, shoclts tlic conscicncc, md shows n lcvcl of corruption :mi fraud pcrpctratcd by the arbitrator. She requests that this ('oiirt vacate the awnrd iiiidcr- C"P.I,.R. $ 75 1 I in fiivor of'otic that is reasonable and just. licspoiidciit 13OE cross-iiiovcs pursuant to C'.P.L.IC. liiilc 321 l(:i)(7) to disiiiiss Wu's -.I - [* 5] petition for its failure to statc a c:Iiisc ofnction under C .P.T,.R. $ 75 I 1. In support ofits cross-motion to dismiss, however, the R O E attaches copies ol complete transcripts of the arbitral proceedings, the exhihits that were rcccjvcd into cvidcncc during tliosc procccduigs, and tlic arbitrator s decision. M d i 01 this evidence gocs beyond the contents of Wu s amended petition, I n its hiel , the I 3 0 1 xklresscs the merits ol Wu s pctition, contending that Wu hus not merely liiiletl to statc ii c;iiisc of actioii i i i licr pctition hul also that Wu has railed lo cstablisli ;I c;iiist ol action iinclcr C.P.L.K. 75 I I for vacating tlic award. In support, the ROE rcfcrs extensively to its attacliniaits, which Includes the informalion lxyond the fiiccof Wu s petition. The ROE firither argues 011 the merits that the penally iiiilmcd by tht: arbitrator does not shock the conscience I n gcncixl ;i motion to disiniss irndcr C .P.l2.1<.l<ulc 321 l(a)(7) will hi1 if within thc rolir corners 01 the plwding there tire disccriiablc facts that show a cause of action. u, GLi.qyiliuimer v. G i n ~ h r r g43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 ( 1 977). The Court must accept as truc tlic facts , allcgcd iii llic plcading and those in the noii-moving party s sublnission opposing tlic dismiss, ant1 accord tlic plaintifrnll f;rvorablc inrcrcnccs. k, R N A iiiotioli to A M R O Hank, N V v. MRIA Inc., 17 N . Y .3d 208, 227 (20 I I ). Where the moving party prcsciits cvidcncc oLi1sidc thc fo~iicoi-iici-s _ . _ - ofthc pleading, such LISal liriiiations iiind exhibits, howcvcr, this Court sliall cletcrmine whether the proponcnt oftlic plcadiiig has ;iC ~ I I I of action, not whether lie 113sstated one. Hiondi v. Heelcmiui S~ I4111 F l o u w Apt. C orp., 257 A.11.2~1 8 I ( I st Dep t 1999), ,Iff d, 94 N . Y . 2 d 0 5 0 (2000) (qLioting 70, Girgjiwhcimcr, 43 N . Y .2d at 1 7 5 ) & IH ] : i i ~lcgnl conclusions, :is well as fiictunl claiiiis citlicr iiilici-cntly incredible or flatly contr:idictcd by documentaiy evidence, iii-c not pi-esiiiiied to be true and nccordccl cvcry I avol-ahlc inf crcncc. 8 1 A.D.2d at 8 I (quoting IClicbcrt v. McKoan, 228 A D.2d 232, -4- [* 6] I his (C cotirt finds Respondent s cross-iiiotioii to bc persuasive provideq, Section 7 5 1 I @ ) pertiiicnt part, that thc coiii t slid1 vacate a11 arbitration award where ;I party s rights wcrc iii picjiidiccd hy coiiuptioii, fraud or iiiiscoiiduct iii procwiiig the awaid, hy partiality of the arbItr;ltor, i by an xbitrator cxcccdiiig his power 01 so iiiiperfcctly cxccu~iiigt that a final md definite awatd was not madc, 01. by l;iiliiie to I ollow tlic proccdiirc ofhrticlc 75. Id.8 75 1 1 (b)(I)(i)-(iv). None o f thow haw., has hecii established i n this case. Petitioner s allegations that the arbittatoi s lindiiigs arc iiiipiopci ;iic Ilatly coiitradictcd by the wbitrnl record in thi\ case, which is bclbrc this Court a s ;itlaclicd t o tlic 1301; s papcis. A rcvicw ofthat record shows th;it no diie procc\s violatioils linvc been shown 1)ctitioncr had notice of the charges and was rcprcscntcd hy couiiscl in the arbitration proceedingi; The arhitrator held tcstificd, iiicludiiig I ctitioncr, ;I iiiiilti-day h a l i n g aiid oii thc charges 111 which ~lulnctwls wltne\ses exhibits were artiiiitterl into evidcncc. I ctitioiicr adiiiits niiscontluct rclnting to tlic Novcmber 4, 201 I , incident The other incictents wete all establisllcd by tcstimony of. witncsscs Wlth pcrsonal lcllowlcdgc ofthc facts. Undc1. thosc clrcumst~lnces,, c 0 L I I - t this concludes that the arbitrator s dccision finding misconduct was not contrary to law, arhitrai y and capricioti\, iii:ippropi iatc and cxccssivc, o r dciiioiistrativc ol any Icvd ol cori-uptioii o r fraud. N o r does the penalty imposed in this case, s w p e i i s m without pay f o r one yew, shoclc tlic coiisuiciicc. k,ljatyi-cva v . N . Y .( . Ilcp l ol IJduc., CSS A.Il.3ti 703, 702 ( I st llcp t 20 12). Although thc I)cnnlty is hnrslicr than the thrcc iiionth suspcnsioii witliout rcccivcd Koi- misconduct earlier in ply penalty that Pctitionci- her employment, as the rirhitrator notcd, this is iiot the first tiiiic -5 - [* 7] that Pctitioirer's conduct has bcen found wanting. Moreover, the disciplinary proceedings irr this case involved morc iricidcnccs of misooilduct than did the first disciplinary action. I.Jnder thesc circumstances, this Court finds that the pcrialty imposed docs not shock thc conscicncc. Accordingly, it is OKL>EREI-)that Kcspondent's cross-motion to dismiss the petition is granted; i t is further OIIDERETI that thc procccding is dismissed in its entirety, and it is further O K l l H C G i l that thc clcrk is dirccted to cnter judgment accordingly Dated. 1:)ecernbcr 3 , 20 12 ENTER: -6-

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.