City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York v. McGraham, 958 N.E.2d 897 (NY 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York v. McGraham, 958 N.E.2d 897 (NY 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
111 citation events (111 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company (nysd, 2024-02-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
Dist. of New York v. McGraham, 958 N.E.2d 897, 898 (N.Y. 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Syracuse City Sch. Dist. (Gilbert)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
"Education Law § 3020-a (5) limits judicial review of a hearing officer's determination to the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511" ( City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham , 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Walker (Read)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Auth. v Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO , 99 NY2d at 11-12 ; cf. City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham , 17 NY3d 917, 919-920 [2011]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of O'Neill v. GEICO Ins. Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Co. of N.Y., 144 AD3d 1160, 1161 , quoting City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Motor Veh.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Here, the arbitrator’s determination has evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]; Crawford v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 35 NY2d 291, 298 [1974]; Matter of Powell v New York City Dept. of Educ., 144 AD3d 920 [2016]; Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. [Board of Educ. of Buffalo City School Dist.], 67 AD3d 1402, 1403 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Mazzella v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To be upheld, a decision in a compulsory arbitration proceeding “ ‘must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious’ ” (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011], quoting Matter of Motor Veh.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Bukowski (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919-920 [2011]; Matter of Selman v State of N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Bukowski (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919-920 [2011]; Matter of Selman v State of N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Powell v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
As relevant here, the hearing officer’s determination to terminate the petitioner’s employment has evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Burgos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Where, as here, parties are subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny — it must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]; Matter of Djafari v BMW of N. Am., LLC, 119 AD3d 860 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Williams v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Notably, in City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham ( 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]), the Court of Appeals cautioned that “[c]ourts will only intervene in the arbitration process in those cases in which public policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator.” Thus, as the Court emphasized, “That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral aw…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton v. Alley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court properly identified and applied the “additional layer of judicial scrutiny” applicable to a compulsory arbitration proceeding, and it recognized and appropriately decided the matter on the basis that the arbitrator’s decision had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton v. Alley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court properly identified and applied the “additional layer of judicial scrutiny” applicable to a compulsory arbitration proceeding, and it recognized and appropriately decided the matter on the basis that the arbitrator’s decision had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Djafari v. BMW of N. Am., LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“Where, as here, parties are subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny — it must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Star Boxing, Inc. v Daimlerchrysler Motors Corp., 40 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2007]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Russo v. New York City Dept. of Educ. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty” (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roberts v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Accordingly, appellants’ claim that termination is the only appropriate penalty is without merit (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roberts v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Accordingly, appellants’ claim that termination is the only appropriate penalty is without merit (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Santer v. Board of Education (4×) also: Cited "see"
NY · 2014 · confidence medium
“Where, as here, parties are subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny — it ‘must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious’ ” (McGraham, 17 NY3d at 919, quoting Matter of Motor Veh.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McShane v. State
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
We must honor the choice of the parties to have their controversy decided in that forum.” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 329 [1999].) “That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty.” (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011].) Thus, courts have upheld an arbitrator’s determination that an employee be suspended instead of dismissed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Board of Education v. Hogan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]; Matter of Denhoff v Mamaroneck Union Free Sch.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Board of Education v. Hogan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]; Matter of Denhoff v Mamaroneck Union Free Sch.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Shenendehowa Central School District Board of Education & Civil Service Employees Ass'n
NY · 2013 · confidence medium
“That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty” (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of the Unadilla Valley Central School District & McGowan (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Given the conclusion that petitioner failed to prove the sole charge presented (cf. Matter of Binghamton City School Dist. [Peacock], 33 AD3d at 1075-1076 ), it certainly cannot be a violation of public policy to decline to impose a penalty or to require counseling or supervision (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v Mc Graham, 17 NY3d at 919-920; Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 80 [2003]; Matter of New York City Tr.
examined Cited as authority (rule) In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of the Unadilla Valley Central School District & McGowan (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Given the conclusion that petitioner failed to prove the sole charge presented (cf. Matter of Binghamton City School Dist. [Peacock], 33 AD3d at 1075-1076 ), it certainly cannot be a violation of public policy to decline to impose a penalty or to require counseling or supervision (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v Mc Graham, 17 NY3d at 919-920; Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 80 [2003]; Matter of New York City Tr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moreno-Lieberman v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Administrative Proceedings The mandatory arbitration proceeding for petitioner, a tenured teacher, was held before a hearing officer pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 918 [2011]), as supplemented by the collective bargaining agreement between respondent Department of Education and petitioner’s union, the United Federation of Teachers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Batyreva v. N.Y.C. Department of Education
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 , 240 [1974]), but also, petitioner’s repeated unsuccessful attempts to cast re spondent, the witnesses, the hearing officer, a federal judge, and a Supreme Court Justice as somehow biased against her tend to show her “failure to take responsibility for her actions” (see Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 83 AD3d 543, 544 [2011]; City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nuchman v. Klein
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The arbitration award was made in accord with due process, and was not arbitrary and capricious, irrational, or lacking in evidentiary support (see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Principe v. New York City Department of Education (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In this case, in view of the Hearing Officer’s apparent unfair bias against petitioner, we believe that public policy considerations favor retention of a teacher who has a proven record of genuinely connecting with his students and making a positive impact in their lives (McGraham, 17 NY3d at 919 [“Courts will only intervene in the arbitration process in those ‘cases in which public policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator’ ”], quoting Matter of Sprin…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re the Arbitration Between City of Buffalo & Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Petitioner’s arguments in that regard constitute little more than vague considerations of a general public interest, which are insufficient to support vacatur of the award (see id.; see also City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919-920 [2011]; Matter of Selman v State of N.Y.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Maher v. King
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Based on all of these circumstances, respondent’s findings that petitioner had inappropriate contact with a student and that she lacked good moral character to remain a teacher were not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Mudge v Huxley, 79 AD3d at 1396-1397 ; see also City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919-920 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Maher v. King
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Based on all of these circumstances, respondent’s findings that petitioner had inappropriate contact with a student and that she lacked good moral character to remain a teacher were not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Mudge v Huxley, 79 AD3d at 1396-1397 ; see also City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919-920 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City School District of the City of New York, Appellant,
v.
Colleen McGraham, Respondent
193.
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 17, 2011.
958 N.E.2d 897
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath, Cheryl Payer and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant., Maria Elena Gonzalez, New York City, and Richard E. Casagrande for respondent.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 52 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Respondent, a 36-year-old tenured high school teacher, was the subject of disciplinary charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a as a result of her improper conduct with respect to a[*919] 15-year-old male student. Respondent corresponded with the student electronically outside of school hours — sometimes late at night — about a variety of personal matters and tried to discuss with him the nature of their relationship, which, in her view, was potentially romantic. There was, however, no physical contact, let alone a physical relationship, between the two and none of her communications were of a sexual nature. They never met outside of school grounds.

The hearing officer found respondent guilty of three of the five specifications preferred against her and determined that she engaged in inappropriate communications of an intimate nature with the student, constituting conduct unbecoming her position as a teacher. In determining the appropriate penalty, the hearing officer considered that respondent was remorseful for her conduct and that she sought therapy soon after her behavior came to light. The hearing officer did not believe that respondent would repeat such conduct and imposed a penalty of a 90-day suspension without pay and reassignment to a different school upon her reinstatement. Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the penalty imposed was irrational and contrary to the public policy of protecting children. *

Education Law § 3020-a (5) limits judicial review of a hearing officer’s determination to the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511. Where, as here, parties are subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny — it “must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]).

Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the arbitration award does not violate public policy. Courts will only intervene in the arbitration process in those “cases in which public policy considerations, embodied in statute or decisional law, prohibit, in an absolute sense, particular matters being decided or certain relief being granted by an arbitrator” (Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631 [1979]). It cannot be disputed[*920] that the State has a public policy in favor of protecting children, but this broad, well-settled principle is not the type of absolute prohibition from arbitrating a “particular” matter necessary to invoke the public policy exception and to overturn the arbitral resolution. Looking at the award on its face, it cannot be said that either statutory or common law prohibits the penalty imposed by the hearing officer.

Nor is the award arbitrary and capricious or irrational. The hearing officer engaged in a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances, evaluated respondent’s credibility and arrived at a reasoned conclusion that a 90-day suspension and reassignment was the appropriate penalty. It was rational, under the circumstances, for the hearing officer to find that respondent’s actions constituted serious misconduct, but that she was remorseful and her actions were unlikely to be repeated, such that termination was not mandated. That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

*

[1] Respondent’s employment was terminated in July 2009 because she allowed her teacher’s certification to lapse. However, since petitioner seeks her termination under section 3020-a in an effort to prevent her from being in a position to obtain future employment with the Department of Education, this appeal is not moot (see e.g. Matter of Brooklyn Audit Co. v Department of Taxation & Fin., 275 NY 284, 286 [1937]).