Case Name: In the Matter of Frances Meyers, Appellant, v. Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-05-16
Citations: 150 A.D.3d 501
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Frances Meyers, Appellant, v Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 501–501

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Frances Meyers, Appellant, v Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
[55 NYS3d 16]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 6, 2016, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education, dated November 5, 2014, which sustained petitioner's unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2013-2014 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination that petitioner's performance as a teacher of English as a second language during the 2013-2014 school year was unsatisfactory is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Brennan v City of New York, 123 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2014]). The determination is rationally supported by the principal's detailed descriptions of petitioner's difficulties in developing learning objectives, using lesson plans, maintaining academic rigor, meeting students' varying needs, facilitating "accountable talk" through "higher order thinking questions," and actively engaging students, among other things, as well as managing her classroom, and petitioner's persistent failure to improve despite the ongoing individualized professional development support she received.
Petitioner's contention that she was not provided with sufficient time or feedback to remediate perceived deficiencies is belied by the record.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.