The court properly found that the award was not arbitrary and capricious, and was supported by the evidence. The Hearing Officer engaged in an analysis of the facts and circumstances, evaluated witness credibility, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion. Petitioner's due process rights were not violated; he was provided with notice, an appropriate hearing, and the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses (see Matter of Kingsley v Redevco Corp.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
MATTER OF MARCH v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
5477, 651642/16.
157 A.D.3d 555 (2018)
69 N.Y.S.3d 49
2018 NY Slip Op 00335
In the Matter of PAUL MARCH, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided January 18, 2018.
Decided January 18, 2018.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
