Case ID: ad3d_128/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Paul Bridgwood, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
    [8 NYS3d 313]
   Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2013, denying the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated September 5, 2012, which sustained an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that respondents violated Panel for Educational Policy of the Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York Bylaw § 4.3.3 based on the absence at the hearing of the assistant principal responsible for three of the four unsatisfactory observation reports is unpreserved since he did not raise this issue before the agency (see Matter of Seitelman v Lavine, 36 NY2d 165, 170 [1975]). In any event, respondents’ determination had a rational basis as it was supported by the testimony of the school principal, who conducted a formal observation of petitioner’s performance and reached the same conclusions as the assistant principal (see Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.