3 No. 100 SSM 11
In the Matter of Joseph T. Bojarczuk,
Appellant,
v.
Richard P. Mills, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New
York, et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 74
June 11, 2002
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Kevin H. Harren, for appellant.
Submitted by Donald R. Gerace, for respondents Board, et al.
Submitted by Kathleen M. Treasure, for respondent State Commissioner.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in
accordance with this memorandum.
As the Commissioner concedes, the Utica City School District abolished
petitioner's probationary teaching position when
Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services
(BOCES) took over its Alternative Educational Program (see
Education Law § 3014-a; Koch v Putnam-Northern Westchester Bd. of
Coop. Educ. Servs., 98 AD2d 311, 315-316 (1984), lv dismissed , 63
NY2d 607 (1985)). We reject the Commissioner's and the District's
argument that, because he was afforded seniority rights under section
3014-a, petitioner received all the rights to which he was entitled
(see Koch, 98 AD2d at 315-316). Section 3014-a(4) provides that
"(t)his section shall in no way be construed to limit the rights of
any of such employees set forth in this section granted by any other
provision of law." Thus, the existence of a teacher's rights under
section 3014-a does not preclude the existence of additional recall
rights in the District under sections 2510(3) and 3013(3) (see Koch,
98 AD2d at 315-316; Matter of Acinapuro v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs.
of Nassau County, 89 AD2d 329, 335-336 (1982)).
SNIPPETS:
In the Matter of Joseph T. Bojarczuk, Appellant, v. Richard P. Mills, as Commissioner of
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
for appellant.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted
took over its Alternative Educational Program (see Education Law § 3014-a;
Educ.
Servs., 98 AD2d 311, 315-316, lv dismissed, 63 NY2d 607 ).
We reject the Commissioner's and the District's argument that, because he was afforded
Section 3014-aprovides that "his section shall in no way be construed to limit the rights of
Thus, the existence of a teacher's rights under section 3014-a does not preclude the
of Nassau County, 89 AD2d 329, 335-336 ).
Specifically, a teacher whose position has been abolished during a BOCES takeover of a school
Inasmuch as neither court below passed on whether petitioner so qualifies, we remit to
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs,
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
|
