Unless it is shown that a performance evaluation was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority
Van Rabenswaay v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05051, Appellate Division, First Department
In this appeal of an unsatisfactory performance rating for the school year, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of Anne Van Rabenswaay’s CPLR Article 78 petition. The court explaining that Rabenswaay failed to demonstrate that her U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith.
The Appellate Division found that the record showed that Rabenswaay had failed to timely complete individualized education plans (IEPs) for at least five of her students, notwithstanding repeated warnings and offers of assistance from the IEP coordinator. This, said the court, provided a rational basis for appointing authority’s rating Rabenswaay’s performance for the school year as unsatisfactory.
Rabenswaay had offered various excuses in her defense. The Appellate Division, however, said that even if the excuses tendered by the educator were valid, they would not warrant a finding that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. Citing Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, the court explained that “[t]o accept [the excuses] would amount to second-guessing the determination that [Rabenswaay’s] repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U-rating.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: