The question presented in this Article 78 appeal:

Would a teacher be able to apply time served on very different license to calculate whether they are beyond probationary status?

In this article 78 case of which sought to annul petitioners probationary termination petitioner claimed the service under a different license would win added to

In this article 75 petition to vacate the determination of an arbitrator  which is made pursuant to New York State Education Law section 3020 – a

The arbitrators’ from that ensued in seven appropriate, with professional, or insubordinate conduct were proven.  Accordingly petitioner is civil service law section 75 –b defense that the charges were

Petitioner was a teacher of catering who resigned to take a chef’s position. Petitioner returned to a different school and was given a “U” rating and terminated. Petitioner filed an Article 78 petition without filing a grievance claiming that his termination was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and violated his right to have

The New York State Court of Appeals held that a probationary teacher who sues for back pay in an Article 78 would have had to have filed a Notice of Claim within 90 after the claim arose.

The Court affirmed the Appellate Division, Second Department decision in that when back pay was requested a Notice

After and Education Law 3020-a hearing the Petitioner was terminated from employment with the New York City Department of Education. DOE.  She had been a tenured teacher and was charged with failing to plan and execute lessons after being observed on numerous dates. The Court ruled that the teacher “failed to implement the school administration’s

So I frequently get asked the question:

Are there are options when you are terminated following administrative hearing?

The answer is yes. There is a section in the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules known as Article 78 which allows you to file a Notice of Petition and Petition in the Supreme Court

Petitioner appeal a U rating for the 2010-2011 school year. Judge Hunter upheld the U rating but the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the ruling holding the the BOE, currently DOE did not follow the proper Performance Review Process.  The principal did do an observation of the Petitioner but failed to: file a post observation

Petitioner was a probationary teacher with the New York City Department of Education and received a “U” rating. He appealed his “U” or unsatisfactory rating to the Chancllor’s committed and they denied his appeal.  In his Article 78 filing he appealed the composition of the Chancellor’s committee but had failed to preserve his appeal by