Smith v. Cmty. Sch. Bd. No. 9, Bronx, 49 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Cmty. Sch. Bd. No. 9, Bronx, 49 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York, 44 N.Y.3d 34 (2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 766 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York, 44 N.Y.3d 34 (2025).published
    In Queensborough , an employee filed a statutory discrimination complaint based on the New York State Human Rights Law, approximately 20 months after she was informed that she would not be reappointed to her position as an assistant profes…
At page 767 cited at this page1 citing case
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Irving Smith
v.
Community School Board No. 9, Bronx
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 29, 1975.
Published opinion
49 A.D.2d 766
1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10760
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 19, 1974, affirmed, without costs. This case does not fall within the ambit of prior cases decided by this court (Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 42 AD2d 702; Greenwald v Community School Bd. No. 27, Queens, 42 AD2d 965; Matter of Spellens v Community School Bd. No. 19, 48 AD2d 658; Matter of Ambrose v Community School Bd. No. 30, 48 AD2d 654; Matter of Kindman v Community School Bd. No. 19, 48 AD2d 834; Matter of Parris v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 48 AD2d 835). We reversed and remanded for new hearings in these prior cases solely on the ground that the notices of hearing sent out by the Board of Education violated the board’s own by-laws by failing to notify the petitioners in these cases of their rights, under section 105a of the by-laws, to confront witnesses, call witnesses and introduce relevant evidence. In this case, the notice did so provide and petitioner utilized those rights at the hearing. Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.