Austin v. Bd. of Educ., 280 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Austin v. Bd. of Educ., 280 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2008–2013 · …misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects at p. 365 ✓ Topic ↗
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York v. McKeever (nyappdiv, 2024-04-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York v. McKeever
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Given that stricter judicial scrutiny is applied to determinations rendered in compulsory arbitration ( see Lackow , 51 AD3d at 567 ; Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. , 280 AD2d 365, 365 [1st Dept 2001]), BOE more than met its burden of showing that vacatur of the award is warranted.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Broad v. New York City Board/Department of Education
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
Under such review an award may only be vacated on a showing of “misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects.” (Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 280 AD2d 365, 365 [1st Dept 2001].) Notwithstanding, where, as here, the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration, judicial scrutiny is stricter than that for a determination rendered where the parties have submitted to voluntary arbitration.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asch v. New York City Board/Department of Education
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
A hearing officer’s determination may only be vacated on a showing of “misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects” (Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 280 AD2d 365, 365 [1st Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asch v. New York City Board/Department of Education
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
A hearing officer’s determination may only be vacated on a showing of “misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects” (Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 280 AD2d 365, 365 [1st Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asch v. New York City Board/Department of Education
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2011 · confidence medium
The standard for granting a petition pursuant to CPLR 7511 is to show “misconduct, bias, excess of power, or procedural defects” (Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 280 AD2d 365, 365 [1st Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City School District v. McGraham
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The court acknowledged that the standard of review mandated by Education Law § 3020-a is that of CPLR article 75, which provides that an arbitration award may only be vacated on a showing of “misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects” (Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 280 AD2d 365, 365 [2001]; see CPLR 7511 [b] [1]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lackow v. Department of Education
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Under such review an award may only be vacated on a showing of “misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects” (Austin v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 280 AD2d 365, 365 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re the Arbitration between Bernstein & Norwich City School District Board of Education
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
The grounds for vacating an award thereunder include, inter alia, misconduct, abuse of power, or procedural defects (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i], [iii], [iv]; see also, Austin v Board of Educ., 280 AD2d 365 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wallace Austin
v.
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 15, 2001.
280 A.D.2d 365
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1530
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 4, 1999, which granted the petition pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5) and CPLR 7511 to vacate the determination of the Hearing Officer of guilt of Charge III, specification N of the disciplinary charges brought against petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss the petition granted and the determination reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in applying a CPLR article 78 standard of review, inasmuch as Education Law § 3020-a (5) explicitly requires that a court review a Hearing Officer’s decision pursuant to the standard set forth in CPLR 7511. Applying the proper CPLR 7511 standard, the petition must be dismissed, as there was no showing of misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects.

Pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (3) (c), the rules governing hearing procedures do not require compliance with technical rules of evidence; therefore, a Hearing Officer may accept hearsay testimony (see, Crossman-Battisti v Traficanti, 235 AD2d 566, 567; Matter of Soucy v Board of Educ., 51 AD2d 628, 629). Further, the Hearing Officer credited the testimony of the Principal and Assistant Principal and found petitioner’s testimony to be inconsistent and incredible (see, Matter of Healy [*366] v Clifton-Fine Cent. School Dist., 240 AD2d 892). Thus, the Hearing Officer’s finding of guilt with respect to specification III (N) was supported by the record, and in the absence of any valid grounds for vacatur of the award pursuant to CPLR 7511, must be upheld. Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.