N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Education / TITLE School District Organization / ARTICLE City School Districts of Cities With Less Than One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Inhabitants
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Education Law § 2510 (2026)

Abolition of office or position

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 2510. Abolition of office or position. 1. If the board of education
abolishes an office or position and creates another office or position
for the performance of duties similar to those performed in the office
or position abolished, the person filling such office or position at the
time of its abolishment shall be appointed to the office or position
thus created without reduction in salary or increment, provided the
record of such person has been one of faithful, competent service in the
office or position he has filled.
  2. Whenever a board of education abolishes a position under this
chapter, the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the
system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be
discontinued.
  3. (a) If an office or position is abolished or if it is consolidated
with another position without creating a new position, the person
filling such position at the time of its abolishment or consolidation
shall be placed upon a preferred eligible list of candidates for
appointment to a vacancy that then exists or that may thereafter occur
in an office or position similar to the one which such person filled
without reduction in salary or increment, provided the record of such
person has been one of faithful, competent service in the office or
position he has filled. The persons on such preferred list shall be
reinstated or appointed to such vacancies in such corresponding or
similar positions in the order of their length of service in the system
at any time within seven years from the date of abolition or
consolidation of such office or position. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law to the contrary, in the event that a member of the New
York state teachers' retirement system, who is receiving a disability
retirement allowance, shall have such disability retirement allowance
rescinded, such member shall be placed upon such preferred eligible list
as of the effective date of his or her disability retirement.
  (b) The persons on such preferred list shall be reinstated, in
accordance with the terms of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, to such
substitute positions of five months or more in duration, as may from
time to time occur without losing their preferred status on such list.
Declination of such reinstatement shall not adversely affect the
persons' preferred eligibility status.
  * 4. (a) The use of artificial intelligence systems as defined by
section one hundred three-e of the state technology law shall not affect
(i) the existing rights of employees pursuant to an existing collective
bargaining agreement, or (ii) the existing representational
relationships among employee organizations or the bargaining
relationships between the employer and an employee organization.
  (b) The use of such artificial intelligence systems shall not result
in the: (i) discharge, displacement or loss of position, including
partial displacement such as a reduction in the hours of non-overtime
work, wages, or employment benefits, or result in the impairment of
existing collective bargaining agreements; or (ii) transfer of existing
duties and functions currently performed by employees of the school
district to an artificial intelligence system.
  (c) The use of such artificial intelligence system shall not alter the
rights or benefits, and privileges, including but not limited to terms
and conditions of employment and civil service status. The collective
bargaining unit membership status of all existing employees of the board
of education shall be preserved and protected.
  * NB Repealed July 1, 2028
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Winter v. Bd. of Educ., 588 N.E.2d 32 (N.Y. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Winter v. Bd. of Educ., 588 N.E.2d 32 (N.Y. 1992). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to his collective bargaining agreement, appellant challenged the propriety of his involuntary reassignment under Education Law § 2510 through final and binding arbitration.”
Desimone v. Bd. of Ed., S. Huntington U. Free Sch., 612 F. Supp. 1568 (E.D.N.Y 1985). · cites it 9× “We therefore cannot determine whether plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the loss of his job.”
Davis v. Mills, 778 N.E.2d 540 (N.Y. 2002). · cites it 4× “As petitioner was not certified as an elementary school counselor, we conclude that the Commissioner of Education did not abuse his discretion in determining that petitioner is not entitled to re-employment under Education Law § 2510 (1). Petitioner served as a school…”
Matter of Kransdorf v. Bd. of Educ. of the Northport-E. Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., 613 N.E.2d 537 (N.Y. 1993). · cites it 7× “In June 1989, the Board notified petitioner that her position would be "excessed” under Education Law § 2510 and that she would be terminated because of her relative lack of seniority.”
Madison-Oneida Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Mills, 823 N.E.2d 1265 (N.Y. 2004). · cites it 3× “” In December 2003, Appellate Division reversed and found that: “Education Law § 2510 (2), § 2585 (3) and § 3013 (2) are nearly identical statutes that provide lay-off seniority protection to tenured teachers employed by small city school districts, large city school districts…”
Cohen v. Bd. of Educ. of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 536 F. Supp. 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). · cites it 5× “N.Y. Educ.Law § 2510 (2) (McKinney 1981).”
DeSimone v. Bd. of Educ., 604 F. Supp. 1180 (E.D.N.Y 1985). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff alleges that the new position created by defendant was essentially equivalent to plaintiff’s old position.”
Mahony v. Bd. of Educ. of Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist., 140 A.D.2d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 12× “On this appeal we are asked to interpret the provisions of Education Law § 2510 (3) which provide that the rehiring of excessed employees be based, not only upon their placement on the preferred eligible list, but also "in the order of their length of service in the system”.”
Cnty. of Chautauqua v. Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n, Local 1000, 869 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2007). “Education Law § 2510 (2), however, directed that “the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued” (emphasis added).”
Freeman v. Bd. of Educ. of the Hempstead Sch. Dist., 205 A.D.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). · cites it 10× “The resolution of this case requires inquiry into the rather murky case law surrounding tenure—in particular, two different statutory and regulatory provisions governing the rehiring or continued employment of a tenured teacher, including the right to displace (or "bump”) less…”
Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 211 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 5× “Supreme Court held that petitioner’s lack of certification as a school social worker rendered him unqualified for the school social worker position and, therefore, not entitled to appointment to the position pursuant to Education Law § 2510. The petition was dismissed and…”
Lewis v. Cleveland Hill Union Free Sch. Dist., 119 A.D.2d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). · cites it 3× “The statutory right of a certified and tenured teacher to reinstatement or reemployment after abolition of his position has existed since 1917 (see, L 1917, ch 786, § 1) and is currently contained in Education Law § 2510 (3).”
Show all 91 citing cases →
N.Y. Education Law § 2510(1): 5 cases
Desimone v. Bd. of Ed., S. Huntington U. Free Sch., 612 F. Supp. 1568 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “We therefore cannot determine whether plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the loss of his job.”
DeSimone v. Bd. of Educ., 604 F. Supp. 1180 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “Plaintiff alleges that the new position created by defendant was essentially equivalent to plaintiff’s old position.”
Elmendorf v. Howell, 962 F. Supp. 326 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
Goldberg v. Bd. of Educ. of Hempstead Sch. D., 777 F. Supp. 1109 (E.D.N.Y 1991).
Winslow v. Pulaski Academy & Cent. Sch. Dist. (N.D.N.Y. 2020).
N.Y. Education Law § 2510(2): 2 cases
Desimone v. Bd. of Ed., S. Huntington U. Free Sch., 612 F. Supp. 1568 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “We therefore cannot determine whether plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the loss of his job.”
DeSimone v. Bd. of Educ., 604 F. Supp. 1180 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “Plaintiff alleges that the new position created by defendant was essentially equivalent to plaintiff’s old position.”
N.Y. Education Law § 2510(3): 2 cases
Cohen v. Bd. of Educ. of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 536 F. Supp. 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). “N.Y. Educ.Law § 2510 (2) (McKinney 1981).”
Leggio v. Oglesby, 69 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.