Majority
Petitioner has been for many years a teacher in the public vocational high schools of Buffalo; since 1936 he has taught only “ Academic English.” By this proceeding (in the nature of mandamus) under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, he seeks to establish his contention that he is by law entitled to a salary of $2,600 per year and that an attempted reduction thereof to $2,500 by the respondent Board of Education in 1939, was illegal. The Board in its answer asserts that the 1939 reduction was legally made. It takes the position that the maximum annual salary of $2,600 established by the Board for “ vocational teachers ” in 1920 and thereafter mandatory (see Education Law, § 884), was not applicable to petitioner because he is and was a teacher of “ social ” oracademic ” subjects, not of “ vocational ” subjects, in a vocational high school. Teachers like petitioner, according to respondent Board, are not and never have been “ vocational teachers ” but are and have been “ high school classroom teachers ” for whom the mandate°d maximum salary is and was $2,400. The Board admits that it paid petitioner $2,600 annually for some years but claims that there was included therein a voluntary increase of $200 over the mandated maximum. This $200 increase, says the Board, could be and was legally withdrawn (in part) when petitioner’s salary was reduced from $2,600 to $2,500 in 1939. The Board sets up also a defense to tlie effect that the same issues here raised were determined adversely to petitioner by the State Commissioner of Education in a proceeding in the form of an “ appeal ” taken to that official by petitioner and
Section 890 of the Education Law makes “ final and conclusive, and not subject to question or review in any place or court whatever ”, a decision of the Commissioner of Education on an “ appeal ” to him in a, controversy such as this. Similar provisions have been in the statutes since 1822 (see chapter 256 of the laws of that year). Since the Commissioner’s determination of this controversy is not shown to have been “ purely arbitrary ”, it was and is final and binding on petitioner and bis
The orders should be reversed, without costs, and the proceeding dismissed.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ., concur.
Orders reversed, etc.
Cases cited
- Cochran v. Levy 175 Misc. 666 p. 242
- Levitch v. Board of Education 243 N. Y. 373 p. 242, p. 245
- Kabatt v. Board of Education 271 N. Y. 629 p. 242
- Bullock v. Cooley 225 N. Y. 566 p. 242
- Elite Dairy Products, Inc. v. Ten Eyck 271 N. Y. 488 p. 242
- New York Water Service Corp. v. Water Power & Control Commission 283 N. Y. 23 p. 242
- Craig v. Board of Education 173 Misc. 969 p. 242, p. 243
- People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health 189 N. Y. 187 p. 242
- People ex rel. Battista v. Christian 249 N. Y. 314 p. 242
- Jacobson v. Board of Education 177 Misc. 809 p. 242, p. 243
- Clark v. Scovill 198 N. Y. 279 p. 243
- Good Health Dairy Products Corp. v. Emery 275 N. Y. 14 p. 243
- Elder v. New York & Pennsylvania Motor Express, Inc. 284 N. Y. 350 p. 243
- United States v. California & Oregon Land Co. 192 U. S. 355 p. 243