Legal Opinion
Pinder v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 4, 2008PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*281Plaintiffs cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 is not viable inasmuch as plaintiff, a nontenured paraprofessional, has no property rights in her position (see Donato v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist., 96 F3d 623, 629-630 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1150 [1997]). Nor is there is a stigma-plus” due process claim since there is no evidence that the reasons for plaintiffs discharge were published by defendants or provided to prospective employers (id. at 631; see McPherson v New York City Dept. of Educ., 457 F3d 211, 216-217 [2006]). We also take note that the record demonstrates…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McPherson v. New York City Department of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Linda Donato v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District Edward MetzendorfCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Tully Construction Co. v. HevesiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Cordone v. Wilens & Baker, P. C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Sangermano v. Board of Cooperative Educational ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
3Cited by13 opinions
- Thomas v. New York City Department of EducationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Flaherty v. MASSAPEQUA PUBLIC SCHOOLSDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- Storman v. New York City Department of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Griffin v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Gastman v. Department of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.