Terminated probationer failed to establish any basis to go forward with her judicial challenged to her dismissal
128 AD3d 617
The Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of a probationary teacher’s [Probationer] challenge to her termination from her position.
The court said that Supreme Court had “providently exercised its discretion” under the “interests of justice standard” in denying Probationer’s request for an extension of time to serve the petition and amended petition personally upon the employers because:
1. Probationer did not seek an extension of time until after the expiration of the four-month statute of limitations;
2. Probationer failed to provide an excuse for the delay or for failing to timely serve the employer;
3. Probationer’s pro se* status is not a reasonable excuse for such failure; and
4. Probationer’s failed to show that the termination of her probationary employment was made in bad faith or in violation of the law.
The Appellate Division said evidence in the record showed that Probationer received two unsatisfactory ratings following classroom observations despite mentoring and coaching throughout the school year and despite a post-observation conference advising her of her teaching deficiencies.
* In the event an individual represents himself or herself in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, he or she is said to be serving “pro se.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: