 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PETITIONER TENURE APPOINTMENT MATTER EDUCATION NY2D PRINCIPALS SCHOOL TEACHER EDUCATION LAW RESPONDENT ESTOPPEL APPELLATE ACTING ROBERTS TERMINATE ACQUIRED TENURE CREDIT FACTS EMPLOYMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL SERVE SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATOR SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCORDANCE SUBSTITUTE JAREMA RICCA |
IN THE MATTER OF JOAN MCMANUS, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
87 N.Y.2d 183, 661 N.E.2d 984, 638 N.Y.S.2d 411
December 21, 1995
2 No. 309(1995 NY Int. 291)
Decided December 21, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Robert Saperstein, for Appellant.
Michele Gapinski, for Respondents.
SIMONS, J.:
In this article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to annul a resolution
of respondent which terminated her employment as Hempstead Middle
School Principal and to be restored to that position. She claims that
she could not be terminated summarily because she acquired tenure by
estoppel when the Board permitted her to serve as Principal for more
than three years, one year as "Acting" Principal and two additional
years following her appointment to a probationary term as Principal.
Supreme Court dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division
affirmed. We now reverse.
I
Petitioner Joan McManus is a career educator and certified school
administrator who has been employed by respondent Hempstead Union Free
School District for twenty six years. In July 1989, the position of
Middle School Principal became vacant. A month later the Board
appointed petitioner "Acting" Middle School Principal while a search
was conducted to find a replacement. After a year's search, the Board
concluded petitioner was the preferred candidate. On August 27, 1990
it appointed her to the position with a two year probationary period
and adjusted her status accordingly.
In May 1991, questions arose concerning petitioner's tenure date and
the District sought the advice of the New York State Department of
Education. It informed respondent that (1) petitioner's probationary
period began in August 1990, (2) that notwithstanding the Board's
resolution purportedly setting her probationary period at two years,
petitioner was required to serve a three year probationary appointment
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
