In this CPLR Article 78 action the Petitioner challenged the "Unsatisfactory" annual performance rating she had received for the 2013-2014 academic year and  the calculation of her pension. Supreme Court dismissed both of these claims advanced by the Petitioner and, in addition, rejected her contention that she had suffered a "discontinuance of employment." The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's rulings.
Citing Murname v Department of Education of the City of New York, 82 AD3d 576, the Appellate Division explained that Petitioner failed to show that the U-rating she had been given for the academic year by the New York City Board of Education [Respondent] was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith. Rather, said the court, Respondent's determination to uphold the U-rating has a rational basis in the record, which shows repeated instances of pedagogical deficiencies during the 2013-2014 school year, as well as a failure to improve.
With respect to Petitioner's appeal concerning the calculation of her pension , the court's decision indicates that there were two obstacles to its consideration of her complaint:  the Respondent was not the proper party against which to bring her claims and  "[t]hese claims could not in any event be entertained, because [Petitioner] failed to exhaust her administrative remedies."
Addressing Petitioner's contention that she had been "discontinued from service", the court found that "there was no discontinuance of employment." Rather, said the Appellate Division, Petitioner had voluntarily resigned from her position.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: