Axel v. Board of Education

OPINION OF THE COURT

Arthur S. Hirsch, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenge respondents’ determination denying seniority credit for continuous substitute services rendered under per diem certificates as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and move for related relief. Respondents moved to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) on the grounds that the petition fails to state a cause of action.

*76On such a motion, made before an answer, only the petition is to be considered and all its allegations are to be deemed true (Matter of Cutcher v Nyquist, 39 AD2d 810), and are…