Miller v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Miller v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y. 2020 NY Slip Op 31998(U) June 26, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156340/2018 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX NO. 156340/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/26/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY HaN. DEBRA A. JAMES PRESENT: lAS MOTION 59EFM PART Justice X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDEX NO. KARIN MILLER, 156340/2018 MOTION DATE Petitioner, 08/12/2019 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -vTHE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,39 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) ORDER Upon the foregoing ADJUDGED that ~he petition The determination Education, dated performing rating school documents, is granted of respondent March 20, (U-rating) 2018, as follows: New York City issuing to the petitioner an Department of unsatisfactory for the 2016-2017 year is vacated 'and annulled. DECISION Petitioner, employee proceeding a "Un currently of the respondent to challenge (unsatisfactory) for the 2016-2017 156340/2018 MILLER, KARIN Motion No. 001 an assistant principal, has been an for over 25 years and brings the respondent's performance determination this to uphold rating given to petitioner year. VS. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 156340/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/26/2020 As a threshold was not timely served. respondent Respondent's argues denial that the petition of petitioner's appeal was dated March 20, 2018. Petitioner this proceeding See CPLR 217. CPLR 306~b, on July 9, 2018. service later than fifteen statute receipt Klein, a "u" rating, states 28, 2018. commenced Pursuant was required to to "be made not For the purposes the right to seek relief decision (1st Dept 2008). that the decision As the affidavit upon respondent Although accrues upon Andersen v respondent's uncontroverted was not received of service on August of by petitioner. was dated March 20, 2018, petitioner's affidavit until March sets forth service 10, 2018, the petition of the was served under CPLR 306-b. With respect be applied procedure determination Matter 616, 618 by showing the principal of the petition, petitioner or was arbitrary discretion." 142 AD3d to the merits is whether "the respondents' burden expires." 50 AD3d 296, 297 petition timely days after the date on which the applicable of the respondent's decision timely of the petition of limitations challenging r matter, the standard is able to demonstrate. that was made in violation and capricious of lawful or an abuse of of Kunik v New York City Dept. of Educ., (2d Dept 2016). "the year-end in .an arb~trary ran kings in every category, 156340/2018 MILLER, KARIN vs. DEPARTMENT Motion No. 001 to Petitioner report manner, . can meet this was completed including unsatisfactory even where unsupported OF EDUCATION 2 of 5 by by any Page 2 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 156340/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/26/2020 evidence Kolmel or contradicted by evidence in the report v City of New York, 88 AD3d 527, 528 Petitioner itself." (1st Dept 2011). here has met this burden. The only information supporting the challenged rating ( consists of four undated principal The principal the petitioner's supervising appeared. that include who took over subsequent The challenged organizing arrival in st~dents failed to directly supervise directive and not completed items incomplete assessments, in the light most etc." favorable fail to provide these conclusions. file by the former principal supervise the school acknowledged evaluation However, resulted attendance support to 13, 2016 letter failed to that same letter was not within 3 of 5 156340/2018 MillER, KARIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mntlnn Nn nn1 [] the four undated the December that such supervision in the evidence evidentiary However, (2) (4) stated that petitioner lunchroom. tasks (3) given even viewing sufficient stated unsupervised up on, and to petitioners, in assessments and items missing ex. Compliance, For example, to the period and dismissal/teach or followed at new given supervisory school aide which items not being marked file letters performance leaving building essential compliance in the evaluation and instead the petitioner's "(1) failed to complete [] that resulted then who issued the rating was not present hearing principal that petitioner teacher to file by petitioner's as well as the reasons provided itself. question letters the Page 3 of 5 to [* 4] INDEX NO. 156340/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/26/2020 petitioner's contractual representative, the current that upon making observed support to supervise letters submitted was provided the lunchroom. respondent's presented failure of students. representative observed the total letters to represent and were only year at the One letter criticized the the discharge respondent's again stated that the day the representative the petitioner, the discharge also fail merely at the end of the school at the hearing staff file decision on a single day to supervise However, over it was First, these with petitioner, same time as the "U" rating. petitioner's taking The three other are signed but undated, to petitioner at the hearing with insufficient determination. notes of meetings the respondent's testified in support of respohdent's file by the principal alleged principal, a visit to the school before that petitioner to support Furthermore, duties. the petitioner of students by herself lack of security was attempting to manage which was difficult arid cameras at the school given and the over 17 exits to the school. Respondent's procedural determination infirmity causing As cited by petitioner, unfair 156340/2018 MILLER, KARIN vs. DEPARTMENT Motion No. 001 in the record fundamental and capricious. is there evidence were set for the petitioner of the review period. it is fundamentally from a more it to be arbitrary nowhere that any goals or standards beginning suffers In the absence to evaluate OF EDUCATION 4 of 5 at the of such evidence the petitioner's Page 4 of 5 [* 5] INDEX NO. 156340/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/26/2020 performance as unsatisfactory of the expectations City School arbitrary and capricious). writing with the petitioner depriving the petitioner and thus undermining New York, 111 AD3d respondent to support the respondent's observations of the entire evidence to make improvements in the but undermined review process") in the record before its determination, in year ("deficiencies technical the court As the shall annul rating of the petitioner. IfiEsiAAA. JAN!ES, JLJ-.fC ~J.S. It ~ . 6/26/2020 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X. APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: were not shared See Brown v City of (1St Dept 2013) were not merely was arguendo until the end of the school 426, 427 there was insufficient petitioner a form of interim of any opportunity and fairness (respondents even assuming the review process. rating of petitioner the integrity for evaluating constitute the former principal's v Bd. of Educ. of Dept 2015) (lst Furthermore, file letters was given no notice Murray 131 AD3d 861, 863 to their procedures that the undated warning, for performance. Dist., non-adherence when petition GRANTED SETTLE . ~ D NON-FINAL GRANTED DENIED ORDER INCLUDES IN PART SUBMIT ORDER TRANSFER/REASSIGN 156340/2018 MILLER, KARIN VS. DEPARTMENT Motion No. 001 DISPOSITION OF EDUCATION 5 of 5 ~ FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D OTHER D REFERENCE Page 5 of 5

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.