Petrella v. Board of Education, Community School Board 28, 71 N.Y.2d 672 (1988)

A school superintendent’s resignation is only effective when it is submitted in writing to the Board of Education, as prescribed by Education Law § 2565(2).

Summary

This case concerns the proper method for a community superintendent to resign from their position within the New York City school system. The superintendent, Petrella, attempted to resign orally, which the Community School Board accepted. However, the Court of Appeals held that under Education Law § 2565(2), a superintendent’s resignation must be in writing to be effective. Because Petrella did not submit a written resignation, the Board’s resolutions accepting his oral resignation and terminating his employment were deemed inoperative. This case underscores the importance of adhering to specific statutory procedures for resignations.

Facts

• Petrella was a community superintendent within the New York City school system.
• Petrella orally communicated his resignation to the Community School Board.
• The Community School Board passed resolutions accepting Petrella’s oral resignation and terminating his employment.
• Petrella did not submit a written resignation to the Board.

Procedural History

• The lower courts annulled the resolutions of the Community School Board.
• The case reached the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a community superintendent’s oral resignation, accepted by the Community School Board, is sufficient to terminate their employment under the relevant provisions of the Education Law.

Holding

1. No, because Education Law § 2565(2) explicitly requires a superintendent of schools to file a written resignation with the board of education.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Education Law § 2565(2) mandates a specific procedure for a superintendent’s resignation: a written resignation filed with the board of education. The court stated, “Education Law § 2565 (2) prescribes that the particular method for a superintendent of schools to exercise his or her voluntary choice to vacate that position is ‘by filing a written resignation with the board of education’.” The court emphasized that if the prescribed method were not required, the statute would be rendered meaningless. The Court further clarified that the general exclusion of New York City community superintendents from the definition of “superintendent of schools” in General Construction Law § 47-a does not apply in this instance. This is because the Education Law articles 52 and 52-A, which govern the City of New York and its school administration, specifically define the role and responsibilities of community superintendents. Since Petrella did not file a written resignation, the Board’s resolutions were deemed inoperative. The Court concluded, “Inasmuch as it is undisputed that community superintendent Petrella did not file a written resignation with the board pursuant to Education Law §2565 (2), the resolutions of the community school board purportedly accepting his oral resignation and terminating his employment were inoperative.”