Court Opinion

ID: 9958744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:36.824674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.659222
License: Public Domain

Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of
                    N.Y. v Nickelson
               2024 NY Slip Op 31078(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 452817/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          452817/2023
             BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK                                                    MOTION DATE         03/29/2024

                                                         Petitioner,                             MOTION SEQ. NO.         001

                                                 -v-
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             CHRISTOPHER NICKELSON,
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1-11, 12, 16, 17, 18,
            19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
            were read on this motion to/for                                 VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.

                      The cross-motion to dismiss the petition, which seeks to vacate a determination by a

            hearing officer and to terminate respondent, is granted.

            Background

                      Respondent is a tenured teacher and has worked for petitioner since 2001. He insists that

            he had no prior disciplinary history in his long teaching career until petitioner brought charges

            against him arising out of purported misconduct that occurred during the 2019-2020 school year.

            A hearing officer was appointed to evaluate the charges and hear testimony.

                      Seven charges were filed against respondent. The vast majority involved allegations that

            respondent engaged in improper physical contact with students, such as slapping or striking

            students, or used threatening language towards students and a fellow teacher. Petitioner insisted

            that this unwarranted physical force constituted misconduct that necessitated his termination.

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW                           Page 1 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                    In detailing the positions of the parties, the hearing officer noted that “Respondent denies

            all specifications against him but admits to unprofessional conduct in playing and joking with

            students, for which he is remorseful” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 at 4). She added that “The

            Department takes the position that all specifications have been proven by credible and reliable

            testimony. Multiple witnesses plus video evidence show that Respondent got physical with his

            students” (id.).

                    The hearing officer stressed that “At the outset, it should be noted that, as Respondent

            argues and the Department acknowledges, the evidence received in connection with some of the

            allegations in this case is largely of a hearsay nature because much of it is contained in written

            statements included in the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) reports made during the

            investigations of the incidents” (id.). “Hearsay evidence is often admitted in these proceedings

            for what it is worth. It is not worth much unless it can be corroborated by other competent

            evidence in the record which may include documents, admissions, facts and events” (id.).

                    The hearing officer reviewed each of the seven charges and concluded that “After a

            careful review of the hearing record, exhibits, transcript, and provided awards whether

            specifically addressed or not, I find that the Department has not carried its burden by a

            preponderance of the evidence with respect to all Specifications. However, the Department has

            established misconduct in that Respondent exercised poor judgment and unprofessional behavior

            by inappropriate contact while engaged in horseplay with students” (id. at 9). She imposed a

            penalty of $1,000 (id.).

                    The hearing officer noted that “I do not find sufficient record support to sustain

            termination. Respondent has worked as a teacher with the Department for over twenty years with

            an unblemished record. And while it is concluded that Respondent made inappropriate contact

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW         Page 2 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            and exercised poor judgement by engaging in horseplay with students, the record reflects that he

            is remorseful and has learned his lesson” (id.).

                    Petitioner dislikes the hearing officer’s review of the evidence and the testimony and

            demands that respondent be fired. It insists that the hearing officer “exceeded her power under

            the Education Law when she found every charge and specification unsubstantiated but still

            imposed a monetary penalty” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12 at 3). Petitioner insists that the penalty

            imposed here is insufficient and will not deter respondent from engaging in future misconduct.

            Petitioner complains that the hearing officer’s determination violates public policy by imposing a

            penalty based on charges that were not alleged.

                    Respondent cross-moves to dismiss. Procedurally, he insists that petitioner did not

            properly serve him with the papers commencing this proceeding as they only included the notice

            of petition and the first page of the verified petition when it attempted to effectuate service. On

            the merits, respondent insists that this Court should confirm the hearing officer’s award. He

            observes that the instant petition only pertains to charges 1, 2, 3, and 7, all of which the hearing

            officer dismissed. Respondent insists that petitioner simply disagrees with the hearing officer’s

            conclusions and that is not a basis to vacate her final determination and terminate respondent. He

            also claims that the penalty imposed was rational because the hearing officer found that

            respondent engaged in unprofessional behavior, but did not substantiate the allegations of violent

            conduct.

                    In opposition to the cross-motion to dismiss, petitioner claims that respondent had actual

            notice of all of the papers filed here and that respondent’s counsel sought multiple adjournments

            of the return date for the instant petition. Petitioner argues that the seriousness of the issues in

            this case should compel the Court to deem service complete, or allow more time to serve, in the

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW           Page 3 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            interest of justice. It also argues that respondent “regurgitates the hearing officer’s decision

            without showing why the award should not be vacated” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27).

                    In reply, respondent insists that petitioner did not establish that it properly served him and

            that the award should be confirmed in its entirety.

            Service

                    As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that service was not sufficient. Respondent

            submitted an affidavit in which he describes that he received only the first page of both the

            notice of petition and the verified petition and was never served with a complete copy of the

            papers (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18, ¶¶ 3, 4).

                    Petitioner, curiously, did not include an affidavit from the process server to rebut

            respondent’s assertions about improper service. Instead, petitioner claims that because

            respondent has access to all of the papers and actual notice, any service errors should be

            overlooked. It also argues that because it agreed to grant respondent adjournments, the Court

            should not dismiss this petition for lack of proper service. Petitioner requests, although it did not

            move for such relief, that it be allowed additional time to serve respondent.

                    Petitioner’s contentions are curious. If petitioner believed that it properly served

            respondent with a full set of the commencing papers, then it should have submitted an affidavit

            from the process server to support that contention. Or, if petitioner had doubts, then it should

            have filed a motion for an extension of time to serve respondent. Instead, petitioner did neither

            and now requests that this Court essentially overlook any service issues although petitioner does

            not admit that service was deficient. This Court has little choice but to find that service was

            insufficient.

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW          Page 4 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   However, the Court does not dismiss the petition on this ground because respondent also

            asks for affirmative relief as discussed below. This Court is unable to find that it lacks

            jurisdiction over the parties and simultaneously award respondent any relief.

            The Hearing Decision

                   “Education Law § 3020-a(5) provides that judicial review of a hearing officer’s findings

            must be conducted pursuant to CPLR 7511. Under such review an award may only be vacated

            on a showing of misconduct, bias, excess of power or procedural defects” (Lackow v Dept. of

            Educ. [or Board] of City of New York, 51 AD3d 563, 567, 859 NYS2d 52 [1st Dept 2008])

            [internal quotations and citation omitted]. “[W]here the parties have submitted to compulsory

            arbitration, judicial scrutiny is stricter than that for a determination rendered where the parties

            have submitted to voluntary arbitration” (id. at 567). The hearing officer’s “determination must

            be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence, and must also be rational and

            satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78. The party challenging an

            arbitration determination has the burden of showing its invalidity” (id. at 567-68).

                   The Court grants the cross-motion to dismiss on the ground that the hearing officer’s

            decision was rational. Petitioner did not meet its burden to show that the hearing officer engaged

            in misconduct, bias, exceeded her powers, or made procedural defects. Instead, petitioner simply

            disagrees with the hearing officer’s findings.

                   The Court observes that the hearing officer concluded, as a general matter, that the

            alleged physical contact was merely horseplay and not evidence of violent conduct. It is not this

            Court’s role to second guess the credibility determinations made by the hearing officer. With

            respect to the individual charges, the Court emphasizes that the hearing officer concluded that

            respondent was simply engaging in horseplay for “specification 1” and that the video evidence

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW          Page 5 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                             5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            did not support the alleged misconduct in “specification 2” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 at 6). She

            noted there was inconclusive evidence for “specification 3” and that “specification 4” was only

            supported by “uncorroborated hearsay” (id. at 7-8). These findings rendered specifications 5 and

            6 as essentially moot because they were based on the allegations in the first four specifications.

                   The hearing officer also found it inconclusive that respondent used profanity with respect

            to specification 7, an allegation concerning a purported threat to a fellow teacher (id. at 8). The

            Court observes that this colleague testified and the hearing officer noted that “Based on Ms.

            Keen’s testimony, the evidence does not establish that Respondent threatened her. Keen testified

            that she and Respondent had a joking friendly relationship prior to this day. They would often

            say “catch me outside” in a joking way. She did not testify that she felt threatened at any point.

            Keen explained that she was encouraged to make a report by Maria Bauer, another teacher who

            was present. I find that Respondent’s comments amounted to sarcastic and unprofessional banter

            with a colleague with whom he had a friendly relationship” (id. at 8).

                   As detailed above, each of the hearing officer’s findings for the specifications was a

            credibility determination based upon the testimony and evidence presented. Nothing in the

            decision suggests that there was any bias or misconduct by the hearing officer. Petitioner’s

            insistence that the record does not support the hearing officer’s conclusions is not a basis to

            vacate the award.

                   To the extent that petitioner claims that the award exceeded the hearing officer’s powers

            by issuing a penalty despite not substantiating any of the allegations, the Court observes that

            respondent seeks to confirm the award. That is, respondent agreed to abide by the penalty

            imposed on him—he did not argue that the award was inconsistent or against public policy. In

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW         Page 6 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                          6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 452817/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            other words, this is not a basis by which this Court can vacate the award and terminate

            respondent.

            Summary

                    This Court’s review of the hearing officer’s decision and the transcript makes clear that

            the hearing officer rationally considered the evidence and disagreed with the petitioner’s

            concerns about respondent. She rationally decided, after hearing arguments, scrutinizing exhibits

            and evaluating testimony, that respondent used poor judgment by horseplaying with students but

            that he has learned his lesson. The hearing officer summed up this dispute by noting that “This

            should also serve to place Respondent on notice that he must adapt his teaching style in such a

            way that he always comports himself in an appropriate and professional manner” (id. at 9).

                    Simply put, this Court finds no basis to overturn the hearing officer’s analysis and

            terminate respondent. As noted above, it is not this Court’s role to conduct its own de novo

            analysis of the record here. This Court can only evaluate whether the hearing officer issued a

            rational determination and the Court finds that the award here is both well-reasoned and logical.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed with costs and

            disbursements to respondent upon presentation of proper papers therefor; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner shall comply with the directives in the hearing officer’s

            decision, which includes that respondent be reinstated to his previous position.

                     4/1/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      DATE                                                      ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                    □
                                          GRANTED             DENIED    GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                    □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             452817/2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW               Page 7 of 7
             YORK vs. NICKELSON, CHRISTOPHER
             Motion No. 001

                                                            7 of 7
[* 7]