N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Education / TITLE Teachers and Pupils / ARTICLE Teachers and Supervisory and Administrative Staff
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Education Law § 3013 (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 
§ 3013. Abolition of office or position. 1. If a trustee, board of
trustees, board of education or board of cooperative educational
services 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 or she has filled.
  2. Whenever a trustee, board of trustee, board of education or board
of cooperative educational services 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 or she 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.
  (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, board of cooperative educational services or county vocational
education and extension board 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, board of cooperative educational services, or board of
trustees thereof shall be preserved and protected.
  * NB Repealed July 1, 2028
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Madison-Oneida Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Mills, 823 N.E.2d 1265 (NY 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Madison-Oneida Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Mills, 823 N.E.2d 1265 (NY 2004). · cites it 12× “At issue on this appeal is whether teaching assistants (TAs) fall within the purview of Education Law § 3013 (2) for the purpose of determining layoffs.”
In re Donato v. Bd. of Educ., 286 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 2× “She was advised that her name would be placed on a preferred eligible list for reappointment to a similar, position in accordance with the Education Law (see, Education Law § 3013 [3] [a]). In 1997 a new position of District-Wide Social Studies Chairperson, K-12 was created.”
Madison-Oneida Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Mills, 2 A.D.3d 1240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 5× “In its petition, petitioner argued that none of its TAs have seniority rights under Education Law § 3013 (2) because a TA is not a teacher.”
Marino v. Bd. of Educ., 262 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 3× “—In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the respondent which, in effect, decreased the petitioner’s salary by $4,148 per year, and for a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the respondent violated the petitioner’s rights under Education…”
Markow-Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 301 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 2× “She was placed on the preferred eligible list of the Board of Education, Port Jefferson Public Schools, pursuant to Education Law § 3013 (3) (a), and was subsequently offered a job in 1998 as a half-time Social Worker.”
Gentile v. Wallen, 562 F.2d 193 (2d Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “On June 2, 1975, *195 Hines wrote her, pursuant to N.Y. Educ.Law § 3013 (2) (McKinney Cum.Supp.”
Hessney v. Bd. of Educ. of Pub. Schs. of Tarrytowns, 228 A.D.2d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “Thereafter, she commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging that the computer teaching position was similar to her previous position and that respondents had violated Education Law § 3013 (3) by not offering it to her.”
Ferencik v. Bd. of Educ. of Amityville Union Free Sch. Dist., 69 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “In 2007 she commenced this proceeding alleging that in 2006, she became aware that an art position had become available in 1994 for which she should have been appointed pursuant to Education Law § 3013 (3) (a). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly…”
Verdon v. Dutchess Cnty. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 47 A.D.3d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “roceeding, claiming that the purported economic rationale of BOCES for abolishing his position was created as a pretext in order to terminate him for “performance/personality/discipline reasons” without providing him with the statutory due process to which he was entitled…”
Matter of Grube v. Bd. of Educ. Spencer- Van Etten Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 03096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 8× “However, in May 2019, the Board summarily terminated petitioner from that position, acting pursuant to Education Law § 3013. Someone else was then hired to replace petitioner.”
deVente v. Bd. of Educ., 15 A.D.3d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Here, the substance of petitioners’ claim is that, upon the abolishment of the two full-time Professional Development Specialist positions, BOCES was mandated to terminate respondents’ employment rather than their own since respondents reportedly possessed the “least seniority…”
DiPiazza v. Bd. of Educ., 214 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 2× “The petitioners, who were teachers who had been excessed from their positions and whose names were the most senior on a preferred list of eligible teachers, commenced the instant proceeding contending that the Board’s action in hiring substitute teachers was arbitrary and…”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— N.Y. Education Law § 3013(1)(a) — 1 case
Gentile v. Wallen, 562 F.2d 193 (2d Cir. 1977). “On June 2, 1975, *195 Hines wrote her, pursuant to N.Y. Educ.Law § 3013 (2) (McKinney Cum.Supp.”
— N.Y. Education Law § 3013(2) — 1 case
Matter of Glantz v. Bd. of Educ. of the Rye City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 05133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
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.