What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the lower court and upheld the DOE's termination of Lurie, finding the agency's decision was supported by the record and not arbitrary.

Why weren't the affidavits and news articles considered?

Because courts reviewing an agency action are limited to the evidence and arguments that were presented to the agency when it made its decision; new materials submitted on appeal are generally not considered.

Can Lurie challenge the severity of the penalty now?

Her argument that termination was excessively harsh was not considered because she failed to raise it in the petition below, so it is unpreserved for appellate review.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision directly affects Lurie and confirms DOE's authority to terminate employment when its investigation substantiates time theft and fraud; it also reinforces limits on introducing new evidence in administrative appeals.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A further appeal to the Court of Appeals would be possible only by permission (leave) and typically requires preservation of issues and a substantial question of law.

Matter of Lurie v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

Docket Index No. 162176/23|Appeal No. 6529|Case No. 2025-03133|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

AdministrativeAffirmed

Filed: May 5, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Administrative
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02784
Docket numbers: Index No162176/23Appeal No6529Case No2025-03133

Appeal from a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul an administrative termination by the New York City Department of Education

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Amanda Spina Lurie’s CPLR Article 78 petition challenging the New York City Department of Education’s August 23, 2023 determination terminating her employment. The court held DOE’s finding of time theft and time fraud over nearly two years was rationally supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious. The court declined to consider evidence and news articles not presented to the agency and found Lurie’s argument that termination was conscience-shocking to be unpreserved because it was not raised below.

Issues Decided

Whether the Department of Education's determination that petitioner committed time theft and time fraud was supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious.
Whether the appellate court may consider evidence and media articles that were not presented to the administrative agency.
Whether the penalty of termination was so excessive as to 'shock the conscience' when that argument was not raised below.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the standard that an agency determination must be rationally based on the administrative record and not arbitrary or capricious, and concluded DOE's investigation substantiated the misconduct over nearly two years. The court declined to consider affidavits and news articles because review is limited to matters presented to the agency when the determination was made. The challenge to the severity of the penalty was not considered because it was unpreserved — the issue had not been raised in the petition below.

Authorities Cited

Matter of Royal Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Housing & Community Renewal161 AD2d 404 (1st Dept 1990)
Matter of 333 E. 49th Partnership, LP v New York State Div. of Housing & Community Renewal165 AD3d 93 (1st Dept 2018), lv denied 33 NY3d 908 (2019)
Matter of Kim v Kelly104 AD3d 556 (1st Dept 2013)

Parties

Petitioner: Amanda Spina Lurie
Respondent: New York City Department of Education
Attorney: Rutkin & Wolf PLLC (Mitchell Rutkin of counsel) for appellant
Attorney: Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (ChloÉ K. Moon of counsel) for respondents
Judge: Ariel D. Chesler (Supreme Court, trial judge)
Judge: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; Kapnick; Rodriguez; Pitt-Burke; O'neill Levy (Appellate Division, First Department)

Key Dates

Agency determination: 2023-08-23
Supreme Court order (trial court): 2025-02-25
Appellate decision entered: 2026-05-05

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult employment counsel about further appeal
If Lurie wishes to pursue review in the Court of Appeals, she should promptly consult counsel to evaluate whether to seek leave to appeal and whether any preserved legal questions support such a petition.
2
Consider administrative remedies
Review whether any internal DOE post-decision remedies, such as a motion for reconsideration or administrative appeal, remain available and timely.
3
Preserve issues and gather record
If seeking further review, assemble the full administrative record and ensure any argued legal issues were properly raised at the agency and in the petition to avoid preservation problems.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the lower court and upheld the DOE's termination of Lurie, finding the agency's decision was supported by the record and not arbitrary.
Why weren't the affidavits and news articles considered?: Because courts reviewing an agency action are limited to the evidence and arguments that were presented to the agency when it made its decision; new materials submitted on appeal are generally not considered.
Can Lurie challenge the severity of the penalty now?: Her argument that termination was excessively harsh was not considered because she failed to raise it in the petition below, so it is unpreserved for appellate review.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision directly affects Lurie and confirms DOE's authority to terminate employment when its investigation substantiates time theft and fraud; it also reinforces limits on introducing new evidence in administrative appeals.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A further appeal to the Court of Appeals would be possible only by permission (leave) and typically requires preservation of issues and a substantial question of law.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Lurie v New York City Dept. of Educ. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02784

Matter of Lurie v New York City Dept. of Educ.

2026 NY Slip Op 02784

May 5, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

In the Matter of Amanda Spina Lurie, Petitioner-Appellant,

New York City Department of Education, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026

Index No. 162176/23|Appeal No. 6529|Case No. 2025-03133|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, O'neill Levy, JJ.

Rutkin & Wolf PLLC, White Plains (Mitchell Rutkin of counsel), for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (ChloÉ K. Moon of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), entered on or about February 25, 2025, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE), dated August 23, 2023, terminating petitioner's employment, granting DOE's cross-motion to dismiss the petition, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DOE terminated petitioner after an investigation by the agency's Office of Special Investigations substantiated allegations that she committed time theft and time fraud over a period of nearly two years. DOE's determination was "rationally based on the record" and was not arbitrary and capricious (
Matter of Royal Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
, 161 AD2d 404, 405 [1st Dept 1990]).

Petitioner's submissions, including affidavits from her former colleagues and
New York Post
articles about the investigation, are not properly before this Court, which "is limited to consideration of evidence and arguments raised before the agency when the administrative determination was rendered" (
Matter of 333 E. 49th Partnership, LP v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
, 165 AD3d 93, 99 [1st Dept 2018],
lv denied
33 NY3d 908 [2019]). Petitioner's argument that the penalty of termination shocks the conscience is "unpreserved, as it was not raised in the petition" (
Matter of Kim v Kelly
, 104 AD3d 556, 556 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 5, 2026