Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF ROEMER v. BOARD OF ED., NEW YORK, 268 A.D.2d 479 [2d Dept 2000]

In the Matter of DAVID ROEMER, appellant, v. Bd. OF Educ. OF CITYSCHOOL Dist. OF CITY OF N.Y., respondent., 701 N.Y.S.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 2000)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
2000-01-18
Topic
general

MATTER OF ROEMER v. BOARD OF ED., NEW YORK, 268 A.D.2d 479 [2d Dept 2000] 701 N.Y.S.2d 915 In the Matter of DAVID ROEMER, appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITYSCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.Argued November 29, 1999 January 18, 2000 In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 and Education Law §3020-a(5) to vacate a determination of a Hearing Officer which, after a hearing, sustained charges of rendering incompetent service and insubordination and terminated the petitioner's employment, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 10, 1998, which granted the respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition. David Roemer, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Michael D.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF ROEMER v. BOARD OF ED., NEW YORK, 268 A.D.2d 479 [2d Dept 2000]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF ROEMER v. BOARD OF ED., NEW YORK,268 A.D.2d 479[2d Dept 2000]
701 N.Y.S.2d 915
In the Matter of DAVID ROEMER, appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Argued November 29, 1999
January 18, 2000
In a proceeding pursuant to
CPLR article 75
and
Education Law §
3020-a
(5) to vacate a determination of a Hearing Officer which, after a hearing, sustained charges of rendering incompetent service and insubordination and terminated the petitioner's employment, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 10, 1998, which granted the respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition.
David Roemer, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and George Gutwirth of counsel), for respondent.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.Page 480

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not demonstrate any basis for vacating the determination pursuant to
CPLR7511(see, Education Law §
3020-a[5]; Matter of Fischer v. Smithtown Cent. School Dist.,
262 A.D.2d 560[2d Dept., June 21, 1999])
. As a result, it is unnecessary to address the petitioner's remaining contentions which, in any event, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

MANGANO, P.J., THOMPSON, ALTMAN, and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.