 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PROBATIONARY PERIOD TEACHERS EDUCATION LAW APPOINTMENT SCHOOL REMUS RESOLUTION RECOMMENDATION DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT SHAFFER STATUTE COURT APPELLATE EXPIRATION WEINBROWN CITY SCHOOL CERTIFICATION DEFENDANTS ACCEPTANCE SPECIFY RESCINDING GRANT RESPONDENT MATTER POWER PRIOR APPEALS PURSUANT |
4 No. 79
In the Matter of Jill Remus,
Appellant,
v.
Board of Education for Tonawanda City School District,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
USCOA,2 No. 112
Sharon Shaffer,
Respondent,
v.
Schenectady City School District, et al.,
Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Case No. 79:
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 60
June 5, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
James D. Bilik, for appellant.
Andrew J. Freedman, for respondent.
Case No. 112: Robert H. Hermann, for appellants.
L. John Van Norden, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
These cases present the common threshold issue whether, under the
provisions of Education Law § 2509,(1) a Board of Education
resolution that grants tenure to a teacher effective on a specified
future date immediately entitles that teacher to the benefits of
tenure. We conclude that a teacher granted tenure effective on a
future date is not entitled to the benefits of tenure until the
effective date specified in the resolution.
Facts and Procedural History
Matter of Remus
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
