Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Teacher?s license revoked after hearing officer finds that the educator engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct in the presence of a student

Teacher?s license revoked after hearing officer finds that the educator engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct in the presence of a student
Matter of Moro v Mills, 2010 NY Slip Op 01558, Decided on February 25, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Stephen A. Moro was a New York State certified music teacher. In February 2005, the superintendent of the district where he was employed on a probationary basis as a teacher of band and marching band advised the Department of Education that Moro had been arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child.*

Education conducted an investigation and ultimately revoked Moro?s certificate based on the findings of the Department?s administrative hearing officer.

Moro appealed the revocation of his certificate, contending that such action was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed, ruling that the hearing officer's determination was based on the testimony of the student,** who gave a detailed description of the underlying incident as well as that of the district superintendent, several other teachers, the investigating police officer, and Moro himself, among others.

The hearing officer concluded that the student's testimony was credible, finding that her testimony was supported by the evidence and by other witnesses, and that Moro's conflicting testimony was inconsistent and controverted by the other testimony.

Moro also contended that it was improper for the investigating police officer to testify concerning certain statements made by him that were ruled inadmissible at his criminal trial and should have been excluded.

Again the Appellate disagreed, noting that ?The exclusionary rule is applied in administrative proceedings by balancing the deterrent effect of exclusion against its detrimental impact on the process of determining the truth. Relevant evidence is not excluded when little or no deterrent benefit will result.? Here, said the court, the testimony in question was clearly relevant to the determination of Moro's moral fitness to teach school children, and petitioner identified no deterrent benefit likely to result from its exclusion.***

As to the Department?s revoking Moro?s teaching certificate, the Appellate Division said that it did not view the penalty imposed inappropriate. In the words of the court, ?Revocation of [Moro?s] teaching certificate is not shocking, excessive, or incommensurate with his offense of inappropriate sexual conduct in the presence of a young female student whom he was engaged in teaching.?

* Moro was acquitted of this charge following trial in criminal court.

** The court said that although the student was the sole eyewitness to the underlying incident, no corroboration was required for her testimony.

*** The Appellate Division commented that the hearing officer was not required to follow traditional rules of evidence, citing Education Law §3020-a [3] [c].

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 01, 2010 (boomark / email).