Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110572969/Judge-s-ruling-over-whether-Jordan-Elbridge-school-district-has-to-turn-over-87-000-emails-to-suspended-principal-David-Zehner
Timestamp: 2014-07-26 17:52:40
Document Index: 432050658

Matched Legal Cases: ['§7511', '§7511', '§3020', '§75', '§7511', '§3020']

Judge’s ruling over whether Jordan-Elbridge school district has to turn over 87,000 emails to suspended principal David Zehner UploadLog inSign upBrowseBooksBiography & MemoirBusiness & EconomicsCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHistoryCrafts & HobbiesMysteryRomanceSociety & CultureTravelYoung Adult & Children'sOther ContentBrochuresCourt FilingsCreative WritingLegal formsInstruction manualsMapsGraphic ArtPresentationsRecipes/MenusSchool Work
P. 1Judge’s ruling over whether Jordan-Elbridge school district has to turn over 87,000 emails to suspended principal David Zehner Judge’s ruling over whether Jordan-Elbridge school district has to turn over 87,000 emails to suspended principal David Zehner Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,042
|Likes: 0Published by The Post-StandardThe Jordan-Elbridge school district asked state Supreme Court Judge Donald A. Greenwood to overturn a hearing officer’s order that it had to produce 87,000 emails created over three years and turn them over to suspended Principal David Zehner. But the judge this week dismissed the district’s request, saying he did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the case is in arbitration. Now the district will have to either turn over the emails or appeal the judge’s ruling. Here is Greenwood’s decision:The Jordan-Elbridge school district asked state Supreme Court Judge Donald A. Greenwood to overturn a hearing officer’s order that it had to produce 87,000 emails created over three years and turn them over to suspended Principal David Zehner. But the judge this week dismissed the district’s request, saying he did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the case is in arbitration. Now the district will have to either turn over the emails or appeal the judge’s ruling. Here is Greenwood’s decision:More info:Published by: The Post-Standard on Oct 19, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/110572969/Judge-s-ruling-over-whether-Jordan-Elbridge-school-district-has-to-turn-over-87-000-emails-to-suspended-principal-David-Zehner05/13/2014pdftextoriginal At
oftheStateofNew
onSeptember25,2012.
PRESENT:HON.
GREENWOODSupreme
NEWYORKSUPREMECOURT
JORDAN-ELBRIDGECENTRALSCHOOLDISTRICT
thereof,Petitioners,
ForanOrderPursuant
toArticle75of
Vacatingthe
ANONYMOUS,a
TenuredAdministrator,
No.:33-12-2305IndexNo.:2012-3582
APPEARANCES:CHARLESC.SPAGNOLI,ESQ.,OF
ForPetitioners
STEPHENCIOTOLI,
O'HARA,O'CONNELL
CIOTOLI,
ForRespondentThepetitioners,Jordan-ElbridgeCentralSchoolDistrictandtheBoard
Education,bringthispetitionpursuanttoCPLR§7511seekingtovacatetheDecision
HearingOfficerFrederickP.Daywhichorderedthemtoproducecertainemailsduringdiscovery.
See,CPLR
§7511.DayhadbeenpreviouslyappointedbytheNewYorkStateEducationDepartmenttohearanddecidechargesfiledbythepetitionersagainsttherespondentpursuanttoEducationLaw
§3020-a.OnMay
thehearingofficerorderedthepetitionerdistricttoproduceemailsfortenindividualscoveringaperiod
threeyearseach,andbyletterdatedJune13,2012thedistrictrequestedthatthehearingofficerreconsiderthedecision.Attheparties'appearanceonJune25,2012thehearingofficerdeniedthedistrict'srequestforconsideration.Thepetitionerbringsthisactiontovacateanawardonthegroundthatthehearingofficer'sdecision"exceededhispowerorsoimperfectlyexecuteditthatafinalanddefiniteawarduponthesubjectmattersubmittedwasnotmade."
§75II
(l)(iii).
ThepetitionwasfiledonJuly
andnotranscript
hearingorthehearingofficer'sdecisionwasprovidedinsupport
thepetition.As
thisdecision,thepetitionershavenotprovidedtheCourtwiththetranscript.TherespondenthasansweredthepetitionandatthesametimeseekstodismissthepetitiononthegroundthatthisCourtlacksjurisdictiontovacatethedecisionatthisstage
theproceedinginasmuchasthediscoveryorderisnotafinaldeterminationsubjecttoreviewunderCPLR§7511.The
iswellsettledthatinorderforthisCourttointerveneorevenentertainasuitseekingcourtinterventiontheremustbean"award"withinthemeaning
See,MobilOilIndonesia,Inc.
AsameraOil,
43NY2d276(1977).TheCourt
Appeals,inaddressingadecisionmadeinthecontext
arequestfordiscovery,hasheldthatbeforethe'''awards'
arbitratorswhicharesubjecttojudicialexaminationunderthestatute-onlytoaverylimitedextent-arethefinaldeterminationsmadeattheconclusion
thearbitrationproceedings.Generallytheawardisthearbitrator'sdecisionandfinaldeterminationuponthematterssubmitted."
TheFourthDepartmentrecentlyaddressedthisissueinthecontext
respondent'smotionforsummaryjudgmentdismissal
sixteenpendingchargesinan
EducationLaw§3020-ahearing.
See,GenevaCitySchoolDistrictv.Anonymous,
77AD3d1365(4
Dept.2010).TheCourtheldthatthehearingofficer'sgranting
themotionconstitutedan"interimaward."
See,id.
Therespondentcorrectlyarguesherethatadecisiononadiscoveryissueduringtheongoingproceedingisaninterlocutoryorderwhichinvolvesonlyalimitedproceduralquestionandinnowayconstitutesafinaldeterminationmadeattheconclusion
thearbitrationproceedings.
See,MobilOil,supra;seealso,GenevaCitySchoolDistrict,supra.
Thereisthereforenoauthorityforjudicialinterventionatthisjuncture.
See,GenevaCitySchoolDistrict,supra,citing,Town
BenevolentAssociation
SouthamptonTown,Inc.,
8AD3d580(2dDept.2004).Thepetitioners'relianceupon
WestmorelandCentralSchoolDistrict
WestmorelandTeacher'sAssociation,
ismisplaced.
WestmorelandTeacher'sAssociation
58AD2d228(4
Dept.1977).Inthatcasethearbitratorhadrenderedafinalandconclusivedecisionontheultimatesubjectmatter
thearbitration,buthadmaintainedcontinuingjurisdictionoverafutureschoolyear.
TheFourthDepartmentruledthattheentiremattersubmittedtothearbitratorwasfinalanditwasappropriateforthehearingofficertocontinuejurisdiction.
Thepetitioners,inignoringtherequirementthatanarbitrator'sawardbeafinaldeterminationuponthemattersubmitted,urgesthisCourttoreviewthearbitrator'sinterim
ThisCourtspecificallyrejectstheanalysisintheunreportedcase
Anonymous,ATenuredTeacher
(RJI33-11-0136)dated2/16/11,asadvocatedbypetitionerswherethecourtruledthatadiscoverydetermination
ahearingofficerwasfinalforpurposes
anArticle75review.
See,MobilOil,supra.