IN THE MATTER OF MARIA P. TUCKER, RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION,
COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, ET AL., APPELLANTS.
82 N.Y.2d 274, 624 N.E.2d 643, 604 N.Y.S.2d 506 (1993).
November 11, 1993
1 No. 212 (1993 NY Int. 212)
Decided November 11, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Jane S. Earle, for Appellants.
James R. Sandner, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
HANCOCK, J.:
Education Law § 2573(1)(a) provides that "(e)ach person who is not to
be recommended for appointment (or) tenure shall be so notified by the
superintendent of schools in writing not less than sixty days
immediately preceding the expiration of his probationary period." In
this case, petitioner was denied tenure based upon acts of corporal
punishment which she allegedly committed less than 60 days before the
expiration of her probationary period. The issue is whether in these
circumstances pursuant to section 2573(1)(a) petitioner is entitled to
an award of pay for each day respondents' notice was late. For the
reasons stated below, we conclude that petitioner is entitled to pay
corresponding to the number of days for which she was not provided the
statutory 60 days of notice.
I.
In June 1987, petitioner Maria Tucker was appointed by respondents,
the Board of Education for Community School District No. 10 and the
school district's superintendent, as a probationary special education
teacher. Petitioner's 3-year probationary period was to expire on June
15, 1990, at which time she would either receive tenure or be
terminated.
On May 24, 1990, just 22 days before the end of her probationary
period, petitioner is alleged to have committed acts of corporal
punishment by cutting the hair of three of her students and to have
used a racial epithet in talking to one of her students. After an
investigation, petitioner's principal recommended to the school
SNIPPETS:
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Education Law § 2573provides that "ach person who is not to be recommended for appointment
petitioner was denied tenure based upon acts of corporal punishment which she allegedly
The issue is whether in these circumstances pursuant to section 2573petitioner is entitled to
For the reasons stated below, we conclude that petitioner is entitled to pay corresponding to
In June 1987, petitioner Maria Tucker was appointed by respondents, the Board of Education
Supreme Court granted the petition and awarded petitioner 52 days pay.
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that although the claimed misconduct that led to
We now affirm.
Thus, as specified by these statutory provisions, whenever a probationary teacher's services
The statutes do not specify a remedy for violation of the notice requirements (see Matter of
The courts and the State Commissioner of Education, however, have consistently held that
of City School Dist.
When statutory language is unambiguous, a court will ordinarily give effect to the plain
Education Law § 2573does not provide for any exception to its 60-day tenure denial notice
We see nothing in the statute or its legislative history that persuades us to read in an
We reject respondents' further argument that it would be unjust to reward a teacher who has
Probationary teachers who are to be terminated do not have protection of a hearing procedure
Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that the Legislature, being cognizant of this lack of
|
