Kransdorf v. Board of Education, 80 N.Y.2d 872 (1992)

A teacher is entitled to seniority credit under Education Law § 2510(2) for prior full-time substitute teaching service, even if that service was interrupted and did not immediately precede the probationary appointment.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a teacher, Kransdorf, was entitled to seniority credit for her three years of full-time substitute teaching, despite an interruption before her full-time probationary appointment. The Board of Education excessed her based on a calculation of seniority that excluded her substitute teaching years. The Court of Appeals, giving deference to the Commissioner of Education’s decision in Matter of Carey and 8 NYCRR 30.1(f), affirmed the lower court’s decision to credit Kransdorf’s prior service, emphasizing that seniority credit need not be for consecutive service. This ruling upholds the purpose of Education Law § 2510, which is to protect teachers who lose positions due to excessing.

Facts

Kransdorf served as a regular full-time substitute mathematics teacher for the Board of Education for three school years (1984-1987). In July 1987, the Board appointed her as a part-time (80%) math teacher for the 1987-1988 school year. Subsequently, in October 1987, the Board retroactively appointed her to a full-time probationary position effective September 14, 1987. In June 1989, the Board notified Kransdorf that her position would be “excessed” due to her relative lack of seniority, calculating her seniority only from her full-time probationary appointment date.

Procedural History

Kransdorf initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, seeking seniority and tenure credit for her three years as a full-time substitute teacher, as well as reinstatement as a full-time tenured teacher. The Supreme Court granted the petition, remitting the matter to the Board and ruling that her prior full-time substitute service should be credited. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals granted the Board’s motion for leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether, in computing a teacher’s seniority under Education Law § 2510(2), the teacher should be credited with full-time substitute teaching service, even if that service was interrupted and did not immediately precede the teacher’s appointment to the probationary position?

Holding

Yes, because Education Law § 2510 requires interpretation, and the Commissioner of Education’s interpretation allows seniority credit for full-time substitute teaching, even if interrupted, is neither irrational nor unreasonable.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals gave deference to the Commissioner of Education’s decision in Matter of Carey, 31 Ed Dept Rep 394, which addressed a similar issue of seniority credit for interrupted full-time substitute teaching. The Court also cited 8 NYCRR 30.1(f), which defines seniority as “length of service in a designated tenure area… such service need not have been consecutive.” The court reasoned that Education Law § 2510 requires interpretation, and the Commissioner’s interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the statute’s purpose, which, as stated in Matter of Brewer v. Board of Educ., 51 N.Y.2d 855, 857, is to provide a mandatory preference in rehiring for school employees who lose their positions through “excessing.” The court rejected the Board’s argument that prior Commissioner holdings were contrary, noting that none explicitly required full-time substitute work to immediately precede the full-time probationary appointment. The court stated: “Carey as well as 8 NYCRR 30.1 (i) plainly state that seniority credit for full-time substitute teaching under Education Law § 2510 (2) need not immediately precede full-time probationary experience.”