Matter of Daul v. Board of Education, 57 N.Y.2d 864 (1982)
A vacancy exists under Education Law § 2510(3) when a teacher on extended sick leave notifies the school district of their inability to return and submits a resignation, entitling those on a preferred eligible list to move up.
Summary
This case concerns whether a ‘vacancy’ existed, triggering reinstatement rights for teachers on a preferred eligible list, when a teacher on extended sick leave informed the school district of her inability to return and subsequently resigned. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that under these circumstances, a vacancy did exist, distinguishing it from short-term leave cases. This decision clarifies the application of Education Law § 2510(3) regarding teacher reinstatement rights when a long-term absence transitions into a permanent departure.
Facts
Two senior teachers, Daul and Dionisio, were on a “preferred eligible list” in the Mahopac Central School District. A tenured teacher was on sick leave for one and a half years. In June 1981, the sick leave teacher notified the school district that her poor health prevented her from returning to her duties. Shortly thereafter, she submitted her resignation, effective June 1982. The Board of Education appointed a less senior teacher as a substitute for the 1981-1982 school year.
Procedural History
Daul and Dionisio initiated Article 78 proceedings challenging the Board’s appointment of the less senior teacher. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Daul and Dionisio, concluding that a vacancy existed. The Board of Education appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a “vacancy” within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 2510 of the Education Law was created for the 1981-1982 school year when a teacher who had been on sick leave for one and one-half years notified the respondent in June 1981 that poor health prevented her from fulfilling her duties and shortly thereafter submitted her resignation (effective June 1982), which was accepted by the Board?
Holding
Yes, because the teacher’s extended sick leave, coupled with notification of her inability to return and submission of her resignation, created a circumstance different from a short-term leave of absence, thus establishing a “vacancy”.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the circumstances of this case differed significantly from cases involving short-term leaves of absence, such as Brewer v. Board of Educ., 51 N.Y.2d 855. In Brewer, the incumbent teacher had only taken a short-term leave. Here, the teacher’s extended absence of one and a half years, combined with her notification that she could not return due to poor health and her subsequent resignation, indicated a permanent departure from her position. This created a “vacancy” under Education Law § 2510(3), entitling those on the eligible list to be considered for the position. The court deferred to the Appellate Division’s conclusion that a vacancy existed under these specific facts, recognizing the practical impact of a long-term absence coupled with an explicit resignation. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of considering the duration and nature of the leave when determining whether a vacancy exists for the purposes of teacher reinstatement rights. The ruling reinforces the protection afforded to teachers on preferred eligible lists when a permanent vacancy arises following a long-term leave of absence.