IN RE MINERVA GUZMAN, pet-ap, v. CITY OF NEW YORK resres

9727. IN RE MINERVA GUZMAN, pet-ap, v. CITY OF NEW YORK resres — Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 5, 2012, confirming an arbitration award, dated May 4, 2011, which terminated petitioner's employment as a public school teacher upon a finding that she engaged in a fraudulent scheme to enroll her granddaughter in public school using a false address, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law §3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding of guilt as to Specification 1-A-1 (that petitioner engaged in the scheme to avoid payment of non-resident tuition) and vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter for the imposition of an appropriate penalty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9727. IN RE MINERVA GUZMAN, pet-ap, v. CITY OF NEW YORK resres — Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 5, 2012, confirming an arbitration award, dated May 4, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher upon a finding that she engaged in a fraudulent scheme to enroll her granddaughter in public school using a false address, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law §3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding of guilt as to Specification 1-A-1 (that petitioner engaged in the scheme to avoid payment of non-resident tuition) and vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter for the imposition of an appropriate penalty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Despite making a strong case that petitioner and her daughter-in-law were not credible regarding the family’s living situation, respondent Department of Education failed to sufficiently establish that the child’s residence had been moved to petitioner’s New Jersey home, or that petitioner and her son and daughter-in-law engaged in the scheme motivated by the desire to save on out-of-state tuition. Nor did the hearing officer make, or explicitly justify, any finding that the child was not a City resident. Thus, there is no rational basis upon which to conclude that petitioner engaged in the scheme with the purpose of defrauding respondent out of non-resident tuition (see Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v. State of New York, 75 NY2d 175, 186 [1990]; Lackow v. Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]).

IN RE MINERVA GUZMAN, pet-ap, v. CITY OF NEW YORK resres

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal