IN RE STANLEY FELDMAN, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, res-res

11146-11146A. IN RE STANLEY FELDMAN, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, res-res — STANLEY FELDMAN, APPELLANT PRO SE. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered August 21, 2012, dismissing the proceeding and confirming an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 7, 2012, which denied the article 75 petition seeking to vacate and annul the hearing officer's award imposing a $1,500 fine for violations of Chancellor's Regulation A-421, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

11146-11146A. IN RE STANLEY FELDMAN, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, res-res — STANLEY FELDMAN, APPELLANT PRO SE. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered August 21, 2012, dismissing the proceeding and confirming an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 7, 2012, which denied the article 75 petition seeking to vacate and annul the hearing officer’s award imposing a $1,500 fine for violations of Chancellor’s Regulation A-421, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Adequate evidence in the record supported the hearing officer’s determination that petitioner violated Chancellor’s Regulation A-421 when he made statements such as “hey, baby,” “how you doing baby?,” and “you good baby” on multiple occasions to his underage female student (see Lackow v. Department of Educ. [or "Board'] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2008]). Although petitioner asserts that the complaining witness’s testimony was inconsistent with respect to the specific comments at issue, the hearing officer explicitly found the student credible and found petitioner to be not credible, and such determinations are “largely unreviewable” (see id).

IN RE STANLEY FELDMAN, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal