13‐4341‐cv
Caruso‐Famiglietti v. Huntington Union Free School District, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
______________________
VICENZA CARUSO‐FAMIGLIETTI,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
‐v.‐ No. 13‐4341‐cv
HUNTINGTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, CARMEN CASPER, JOHN
FINELLO, JOSEPH GIANI, JAMES POLANSKY,
Defendants‐Appellees.
______________________
1
FOR APPELLANT: Steven A. Morelli, The Law Offices of Steven A. Morelli,
P.C., Garden City, NY.
FOR APPELLEES: Steven C. Stern (Melissa L. Holtzer, on the brief), Sokoloff
Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Hurley, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Vicenza Caruso‐Famiglietti appeals from the October 23, 2013
judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Hurley, J.), granting Defendants‐Appellees’ motion to dismiss.
On appeal, Caruso‐Famiglietti argues that the district court erred in
dismissing her procedural due process claim.1 Specifically, she contends that
Defendants‐Appellees violated her procedural due process rights by failing to
provide an evidentiary hearing prior to excessing her. Caruso‐Famiglietti
grounds this claim on New York Education Law Section 2510(1), which some
courts have suggested may require a predeprivation hearing when a tenured
teacher’s position is abolished and a similar position is concurrently created. See,
1 Caruso‐Famiglietti does not challenge the dismissal of her claims alleging violations of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and various state and local
laws.
2
e.g., DeSimone v. Bd. of Educ., S. Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist. 612 F. Supp. 1568
1570–71 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
Even were we to conclude that Caruso‐Famiglietti was terminated and that
a pretermination hearing is required when a tenured teacher’s position is
abolished and a similar post is concurrently created – two issues we do not reach
– Caruso‐Famiglietti fails to plausibly plead that the newly created positions in
this case were similar to her old position.
We have also analyzed Caruso‐Famiglietti’s due process claim under the
framework set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Weighing all of
the Mathews factors in the balance, Caruso‐Famiglietti has not plausibly alleged a
procedural due process violation.
We have considered Caruso‐Famiglietti’s remaining arguments and find
them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3