Skip to main content

Decision No. 12,732

Appeal of DODGE R. WATKINS from action of the Board of Education of the Wappingers Central School District regarding an employment contract.

Decision No. 12,732

(June 26, 1992)

Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman, Esqs., attorneys for petitioner, Margot J. Metzer, Esq., of counsel

Raymond G. Kruse, P.C., attorney for respondent

SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from the failure of the board of education of the Wappingers Central School District to make certain payments under a contract of employment dated March 1, 1989. The appeal must be dismissed.

The facts giving rise to this appeal have been described in some detail in two previous appeals (Appeal of Watkins, 29 Ed Dept Rep 479; Appeal of Watkins, 31 id. 101), and will not be repeated here. Petitioner claims respondent has violated certain provisions of paragraph 3 of his employment agreement, which deals with salary and annual increases thereto. Petitioner also claims that respondent failed to pay a basic increase of not less than four percent (4%) that was due him commencing March 1, 1991.

Respondent alleges that the appeal is untimely, and that it has since paid to petitioner the required four percent (4%) basic increase.

Petitioner's reply admits that he has been paid the four percent (4%) increase. However, in an affidavit submitted with the reply, petitioner attempts to claim further violations of his contract with respect to certain payments due under a different paragraph of the agreement. This violates 8 NYCRR ""275.3 and 275.14. A reply and papers annexed to it may not be used to set forth new claims and new issues which should have been set forth in the petition (Appeal of McMillan, 31 Ed Dept Rep 343; Appeal of Benkovitz, 31 id. 178; Appeal of Barbara P., et al., 30 id. 198). Moreover, the Commissioner of Education will not render a decision on an issue which subsequent events have laid to rest (Appeal of Krause, 27 Ed Dept Rep 57; Matter of Kruta, 20 id. 363). In light of the fact that respondent has paid petitioner the salary increase which is the subject of this appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.