Opinion

Anderson v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

  • 128 A.D.2d 614
  • 512 N.Y.S.2d 870
  • 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44304
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Mar 9, 1987
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 56.2%

The opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the petitioner’s reinstatement to two part-time teaching positions, and to restore to her all benefits nunc pro tunc, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), entered October 21, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor provisions adjudging that the Federally funded School to Work Transition Program was similar to the petitioner’s position as a matter of law, and ordering the petitioner reinstated to the School to Work Program nunc pro tunc to the date when the vacancy first came into existence; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination of the vacancy date and the calculation of any back pay owed to the petitioner.

The part-time position in the respondent’s program which was created through funding by a Federal grant consisted *615 entirely of duties formerly performed by the petitioner. Thus the new part-time position and the petitioner’s former position were "similar” within the meaning of Education Law § 2510 (3) (see, Matter of Abrams v Ambach, 43 AD2d 883, 884 ; see also, Matter of Young v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 31, 34 ), and the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in that position.

On the other hand, although some of the duties assumed by other teachers as part of a restructured position in the respondent’s program were the same as those formerly assigned to the petitioner, those duties amounted to less than half of the duties of the restructured position. Thus the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement in the restructured position because it was not "similar” to her former position (see, Matter of Currier v Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 80 AD2d 979 ; Matter of Binan v Board of Educ., 74 AD2d 922, 923 ; Education Law § 2510 [3]). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.