The following papers were read on this motion to/for Article 75Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. — Affidavits — Exhibits A-F ECFS DOC No(s). 1-36Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits/Memo of Law — Exhibits 1-4 ECFS DOC No(s). 1-17Replying Affidavits ECFS DOC No(s). 1-17; 1-9For a Judgment and Order Pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
*1 Petitioner brings this Article 75 proceeding seeking an order to vacate and modify a hearing of-ficer’s opinion and award dated March 13, 2017, finding just cause for petitioner’s termination from employment. Respondents’ oppose and by notice of cross-motion dated June 9, 2017, move pursuant to New York Education Law §3020-a (5) and CPLR §§7511 and 3211(a)(7), for an order dismissing the petition on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action.FACTUAL BACKGROUND and CONTENTIONSPetitioner, a tenured teacher formerly employed by respondent Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (“BOE”) (also known as and sued herein as the New York City Department of Education) and formerly assigned to P.S. 226 located in the Bronx, commenced this proceeding, seeking an order vacating Hearing Officer James A. Brown’s (“HO Brown”) opinion and award. After a hearing on charges preferred against petitioner, HO Brown, a designated impartial hearing officer under Education Law §3020-1 and §3020-c, found that there was just cause to terminate petitioner’s employment. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, HO Brown determined that petitioner’s job performance during the 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years was incompetent and that petitioner had engaged in neglect of duty, rendering petitioner unfit to properly perform obligations to the service and had a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance under Education Law §3012(c).In commencing this proceeding, petitioner does not challenge HO Brown’s findings with respect to charges of incompetence preferred; rather, he contends that the penalty of termination should be over-turned claiming that the penalty shocks the conscience in light of petitioner’s unblemished record prior to the 2013-2014 school year and the absence of any misconduct charges. Petitioner claims that he had an unblemished record for nineteen years as a technology teacher and that when he was asked to incorporate social studies into his job description respondents did not provide petitioner with any training or assistance to teach social studies. As such, petitioner argues that the penalty of termination, “shocks the
