St. Cyr v New York City Dept. of Educ.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

St. Cyr v New York City Dept. of Educ. 2013 NY Slip Op 30622(U) March 27, 2013 Sup Court, New York County Docket Number: 103563/12 Judge: Peter H. Moulton 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. ANNED ON41212013 [* 1] [* 2] Petitioner, Index No. 103563/12 -againstN E W YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent Petitioner decision of in this respondent Article ~cmm-E 78 ~ c ~ q ~ h a 3 l . s n g he s t e Department of Education p e r m a n e n t l y revoke his s c h o o l bus d r i v i n g certificate. ( DOE ) to H e seeks to be removed from the list of ineligible d r i v e r s . k e p t by t h e DOE. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition, BACKGROUND The petition a l l e g e s t h a t petitioner M i c k e l s o n St. Cyr began working a s a school bus d r i v e r in 1 9 9 5 . Beginning in 2 0 0 6 he worked f o r Brothers Transportation, a p r i v a t e bus company that c o n t r a c t s with the DOE, In the 2011-12 school year, St. Cyr was assigned a bus r o u t e in Queens which included d r i v i n g speci61 needs children. On December 19, 2011, St. Cyr was driving his b u s to JHS 190 when one of his p a s s e n g e r s , a t e n y e a r o l d girl referred to as Student A i n t h e p e t i t i o r t t o p r o t e c t h e r privacy, began to act 1 [* 3] out. According t u the petition, a school m a t r o n on the b u s , Martbe Joseph, attempted w i t h o u t pJX)perly, success to get t o behave Student A The petition alleges that d e s p i t e Ms.' Joseph's efforts Student A "continued t o a c t i n a n aggressive a n d physical manner" w i t h the o t h e r students, The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e s t h a t a t one p o i n t S t . C y r stopped the bus and directed S t u d e n t A ta move her seat and p u t on h e r seat belt. Student A r e f u s e d , S t , Cyr s t a t e s t h a t h e n e v e r touched Student A. S t u d e n t A a l l e g e d l y called her mother from the b u s , a n d told h e r t h a t St, C y r had grabbed h e r arm and l e f t a b r u i s e . Student A ' s m o t h e r reported t h i s i n c i d e n t t o DOE, Soon t h e r e a f t e r , St. Cyr was suspended f r o m h i s jab on t h e s t r e n g t h of Student A ' s mother's complaint. DOE'S Office of P u p i l Transportation ("OPT") conducted a n investigation. to petitioner, Student A, Student A ' s mother, A f t e r speaking Ms. Joseph, and several s t u d e n t s , OPT determined t h a t St. C y r had grabbed S t u d e n t A b y t h e arm and forcibly dragged h e r t o the On January 12, 2012, front of the bus, DOE informed petitioner that it had r e v o k e d h i s certification to drive a s c h o o l bus. Petitioner a p p e a l e d this decision. C o n f e r e n c e was h e l d on March Regulation C-100. counsel. Two A Dikciplinary Appeal 14, 2012 p u r s u a n t to Chance1lor's Petitioner was represented at this h e a r i n g by witnesses testified: petitioner investigator who i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e incident. 2 and the OPT OPT a l s o i n t r o d u c e d [* 4] other witness statements and photographs of Student arm. A's Petitioner d i d n o t call a n y witnesses beside himself o r submit a n y documents into evidence. In a written Conference Report, the hearing officer who presided a t the C o n f e r e n c e sustained t h e revocation of petitioner's certification. P e t i t i o n e r was placed on an "Ineligible L i s t , ' ' which p r e v e n t s him from becoming a b u s d r i v e r f o r DOE in the petition states that Brothers Transportation fUtUKe, The terminated his employment. DISCUSSION The petition asserts that t h e Hearing Officers' not supported by evidence. substantial However, decision was the First Department h a s h e l d t h a t the substantial e v i d e n c e standard is n o t applicable t o d e c i s i o n s made after Disciplinary Appeal Conferences h e l d pursuant to Chancellor's v Klein, 38 A D 3 d 380.) Instead, such decisions a r e reviewed under the a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s s t a n d a r d of x e v i e w . standard, a Court's rationally, judgment ' (m) Under that i n q u i r y i s limited t o whether the a g e n c y acted ( E . a . Matter of F e l l v Board of Education of the Union Free School District I, 34 N Y 2 d 2 2 2 . ) it's (Matter of Duncan Regulation C-100. for that of t h e agency, A c o u r t may not substitute a n d the, fact t h a t other r e a s o n a b l e minds might have reached a d i f f e r e n t . c o n c 1 u s i o n is not sufficient to override an a g e n c y decision. 3 (See Isnizio v c i t v of [* 5] N e w York, 8 5 A D 3 d 1171.) The DOE'S determination is rational and must be u p h e l d . The record before the h e a r i n g officer was sufficient to sustain h i s finding. T h e hearing officer was entitled to weigh t h e probative of t h e evidence and t h e court may not second guess t h a t Value evaluation unless it is irrational. (See A. Uliano York S t a t e DeB't of Labor, 97 A D 3 d 6 6 4 ~ & Son, Ltd. v N e w Petitioner complains t h a t Ms. Joseph was not called as a witness, and he o f f e r s h e r affidavit with the However, instant petitioner petition to support his version of events. could h a v e called Ms. Joseph as a witness. While p e t i t i o n e r complains t h a t he was not afforded d u e process he does not state haw the hearing h e was afforded f e l l s h o r t of what he was due. He was given notice af the charges, an opportunity to be h e a r d , and an opportunity to provide e v i d e n c e . N o r does p e t i t i o n e r ' court's conscience. - Misc3d , I I 3 termination from employment shock the (a Webster P a r k i n a LLC v C itv of New York, 2008 N Y Misc Lexis 1229.) Once the hearing officer found that petitioner had grabbed Student A ' s arm with sufficient f o r c e t o cause visible bruising, it was reasonable to terminate petitioner. Petitioner points to an otherwise unblemished record as a bus d r i v e r . Respondent offers nothing "to the c o n t r a r y . However, it is not irrational to terminate an employee charged with the welfare of c h i l d r e n upon a f i n d i n g that the employee caused a child within his care physical harm. 4 2 [* 6] CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted, t h e petition is d e n i e d , and this proceeding is dismissed. constitutes the decision and judgment of the C o u r t . mB Date: March 2 7 , 2013 A. J . S . C . 5 This

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.