In the Matter of Anne Van Rabenswaay, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondents

In the Matter of Anne Van Rabenswaay, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondents. [33 NYS3d 699] [MAJORITY] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2015, denying the petition to annul respondents’ determination, which upheld petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2012-2013 school year, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith. The evidence that petitioner failed to timely complete individualized education plans (IEPs) for at least five of her students, despite repeated warnings and offers of assistance from the IEP coordinator, provided a rational basis for the rating (see e.g. Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]; Batyreva v New York City Dept. of Educ., 50 AD3d 283 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner’s various excuses, even if valid, would not warrant a finding that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. To accept them would amount to second-guessing the determination that her repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U-rating (see Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92 [1999]). Furthermore, petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any issue of fact that could show, even if resolved in her favor, arbitrary and capricious action under the circumstances. Thus, there was no need for the court to have conducted a hearing (see CPLR 7804 [h]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.