Two extra summers on the clock, one restraint probe, and a tenure bid that went nowhere
A New York City special education teacher who argued he had earned tenure through summer work lost his appeal to overturn his termination.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal on November 4, 2026, finding the city’s Department of Education acted within its rights.
The teacher began probationary employment with the DOE in August 2018. Under New York’s Education Law, probationary teachers must serve a four-year period before earning tenure.
His argument was creative. He had worked during the summers of 2019 and 2020, and said that unbroken employment should count toward the four-year clock - meaning he had already crossed the line into tenure before the DOE moved to end his job.
The court was not persuaded. Under New York’s General Construction Law, one “year” means a calendar year - not an accumulation of working days. The summers did not speed up his timeline. His employment ended within the four-year window, and he had not earned tenure.
In the summer of 2021, the teacher became the subject of an investigation into what the court described as “his use of excessive force in restraining a student.” On June 27, 2022 - still within his probationary period - the DOE denied his sign-off on probation and ended his employment, effective September 1, 2022.
The charges against him were sustained in November 2022.
He went to court, filing what New York calls an Article 78 proceeding - essentially asking a judge to reverse a government agency’s decision. He wanted reinstatement as a tenured teacher, plus back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition in July 2024. He appealed.
New York law gives school districts wide room to move. The DOE can deny tenure to a probationary teacher without a hearing and without giving reasons - unless the teacher can show the decision was made in bad faith, for an unconstitutional reason, or in breach of a statute. The court found those claims fell short, calling them “conclusory and unsubstantiated.”
He also sought a name-clearing hearing, arguing the termination had stigmatized him. That failed too.
The four-judge panel was unanimous.
For HR teams managing probationary employees, the case drives home that the probationary window is measured in calendar years, not accumulated working days - and employer discretion within it stays broad so long as the decision is not made in bad faith.
The decision was issued by the Appellate Division, Second Department. No further appeal has been indicated.
