| Matter of Seraydar v Three Vil. Cent. School Dist. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09336 [90 AD3d 936] |
| December 20, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Susan Seraydar, Appellant, v Three VillageCentral School District et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Guercio & Guercio, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Douglas A. Spencer and Kelly A. Reape ofcounsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of ThreeVillage Central School District dated December 9, 2009, requiring the petitioner to submit to apsychiatric examination pursuant to Education Law § 913, the petitioner appeals from (1)an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sweeney, J.), dated April 1, 2010, which deniedthe petition, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered August 4, 2010, which, upon the order,is in favor of the respondents and against her dismissing the proceeding.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The appeal from the order must be dismissed since an order made in a CPLR article 78proceeding is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [b] [1]; Matter of Petrocelliv Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Kings Point, 281 AD2d 423 [2001]), and any possibilityof taking a direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the proceeding(see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]; Matter of Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. vCounty of Westchester, 71 AD3d 1040, 1040 [2010]). The issues raised on the appealfrom the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from thejudgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The petitioner was a special education teacher at Ward Melville High School in EastSetauket, a school within the Three Village Central School District (hereinafter the District). OnNovember 30, 2009, the petitioner was relieved of her teaching duties and administrativelyreassigned. On December 9, 2009, the District directed the petitioner to submit to a psychiatricexamination pursuant to Education Law § 913, to be administered on December 11, 2009.The petitioner did not appear for the examination. The District rescheduled the examination forDecember 22, 2009. However, the petitioner again did not appear for the examination. Thepetitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review theDistrict's determination to require her to submit to a psychiatric examination pursuant toEducation Law § 913. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding, concluding that the District's directive to the petitioner requiring her to undergo apsychiatric examination was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unreasonable.We affirm.
"Teachers in this State are generally required to submit to an examination to determine theirphysical and mental fitness to perform their duties (Education Law § 913)" (Matter ofPatchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of Patchogue-Medford Union FreeSchool Dist., 70 NY2d 57, 69 [1987]). School districts have "an interest in seeing that [their]teachers are fit," and "it is not unreasonable to require teachers to submit to further testing whenschool authorities have reason to suspect that they are currently unfit for teaching duties"(id.; see generally Education Law § 913).
Here, there is ample evidence in the record of unprofessional behavior and questionablejudgment exhibited by the petitioner which provided the District with reason to suspect that thepetitioner may be unfit for her teaching duties (see Matter of Brodsky v Board of Educ. ofBrentwood Union Free School Dist., 64 AD2d 611 [1978]; cf. Matter of Gardner v Niskayuna Cent.School Dist., 42 AD3d 633 [2007]; Matter of Fitzpatrick v Board of Educ. ofMamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 96 AD2d 557, 558 [1983]). Accordingly, as theSupreme Court properly determined, the District's directive to the petitioner to submit to apsychiatric examination pursuant to Education Law § 913 was not arbitrary and capricious,an abuse of discretion, or unreasonable (see Matter of Brodsky v Board of Educ. ofBrentwood Union Free School Dist., 64 AD2d at 611). Consequently, such an examinationshould be scheduled on notice to the petitioner.
The petitioner's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in lightof our determination. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.