An arbitration officer's firing of a New York City schoolteacher for misconduct that included imposing corporal punishment on a student was proper even though the officer relied partially on hearsay evidence derived from certain students' out-of-court statements, a state appeals panel ruled Thursday.

A unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel wrote that such hearsay evidence “may be the basis of an administrative determination,” citing Matter of Colon v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Educ., 94 AD3d 568 (1st Dept. 2012).

It also pointed out that the “hearsay evidence was supported by the testimony of various school administrators and aides, who were subject to cross-examination by [the terminated teacher].”

In addition, the panel said Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead, who had confirmed the arbitration hearing officer's decision to terminate teacher Noah Berkley, “correctly concluded that the hearing officer's decision was supported by the record, in that ample evidence, including petitioner's [Berkley's] admissions, supported the finding that he exposed himself to students in the boys' bathroom, improperly touched a student's knee, used his foot to push another student, and was frequently late.”

The hearing officer also had the power, and “was entitled to” reject Berkley's explanations of his behavior based on an assessment of his credibility, the panel wrote.

The panel, composed of Justices Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Peter Tom, Angela Mazzarelli, Troy Webber and Cynthia Kern, considered whether Berkley's due process rights had been violated by the hearing officer's decision, which came as part of a compulsory arbitration.

In affirming Edmead's 2016 confirmation of the hearing officer's decision, the panel found that Berkley's rights were not stripped away. As part of that ruling, the justices rejected Berkley's additional argument that he should have been given the date on which he allegedly inflicted corporal punishment upon a student.

“He was provided with enough information to mount an adequate defense,” the justices wrote in Berkley v. Department of Education, 650648/2016, while adding that at the “[arbitration] hearing, [Berkley] did not indicate any vagueness with regard to the [corporal punishment] incident, since he knew the name of the student who made the complaint and had received statements by other students in the room at the time.”

The justices explained that they used a “hybrid” standard of review for their appellate analysis. It included following CPLR 75 as mandated by Education Law § 3020-a(5)(a). CPLR 75 provides that an arbitration award may be vacated only on a showing of misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects, the justices wrote.

Their review also incorporated the arbitrary and capricious test in CPLR Article 78, they said.

“Where the arbitration is compulsory, as here, judicial scrutiny is stricter than for a determination rendered in voluntary arbitration proceedings, and the determination must be in accord with due process, supported by adequate evidence, and rational,” the justices also noted.

Bryan Glass of Glass Krakower in Manhattan represented Berkley. His office declined to comment.

Jane Gordon, senior counsel with the city's Law Department, represented the Department of Education. Nick Paolucci, a Law Department spokesman, said in an email, “This teacher engaged in multiple episodes of proven misconduct, and the independent arbitrator had ample basis to find that he should not work with schoolchildren, as Supreme Court and the Appellate Division both held.”