Case Name: In the Matter of Jean St. Vil, Appellant, v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-11-10
Citations: 133 A.D.3d 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Jean St. Vil, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Jean St. Vil, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
[19 NYS3d 51]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 28, 2014, denying the petition to annul respondents' determination, dated September 19, 2012, which sustained petitioner teacher's unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the unsatisfactory rating annulled, and the matter remanded to respondents for further proceedings.
The record demonstrates deficiencies in the performance review process resulting in petitioner's unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2010-2011 school year that were not merely technical but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process (see Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Kolmel v City of New York, 88 AD3d 527, 529 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Brown v City of New York, 111 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2013]).
Petitioner's unsatisfactory rating was based primarily on the principal's alleged personal observations as a rating officer. However, petitioner never received any post-observation reports by the rating officer until the U-rating appeal hearing and the principal does not claim to have spoken with petitioner following the alleged observations. Nor were comments critical of petitioner's performance placed in his file. Thus, there is no evidence that petitioner was notified before the end of the school year, in June 2011, that his work was considered unsatisfactory. The mere fact that he had the assistance of a guidance counselor and literary coach at some time during the school year did not constitute warning that he was at risk of an unsatisfactory rating since petitioner was never told that he was not improving in the areas of concern despite this assistance. Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.