Legal Opinion · Dissent
Tyson v. Hess
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 1, 1985Published
1Dissent
Hancock, Jr., J. P., and Boomer, J.
(dissenting). We dissent. Special Term, in our opinion, properly found that petitioner had a sufficient property interest in her expectancy of continued employment during the 1983-1984 academic year to entitle her to a pretermination constitutional due process hearing under Board of Regents v Roth (408 US 564) and Perry v Sindermann (408 US 593) (see, Matter of Savino v Bradford Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 75 AD2d 994).
On June 8, 1983 petitioner accepted and returned to the School District a letter to her from the Director of Personnel and General…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Voorhis v. Warwick Valley Central School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Savino v. Bradford Central School District Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980