Brown v. Lindbloom Record on Appeal

    (Ermrt 0! Appeals
State of New York

In the Matter of the Application of 

DOROTHY J. BROWN,
Petitioner-Respondent,

for an Order against

RAY L. LINDBLOOM, Superintendent of Public Schools 
in Elmont, UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 
16, and BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Appellants.

RECORD ON APPEAL

A. Holly Patterson,
Attorney for Ray L. Lindbloom and 

Board of Education, Union Free 
School District No. 16, Town of 
Hempstead, Appellants,

308 Front Street,
Hempstead, New York.

Jawn A. Sandieer,
Attorney for Dorothy J. Brown, 

Petitioner-Respondent,
101 West 125th Street,

New York, N. Y.

A ppellate P ress Corp., 41 M urray Street, N. Y., Cortlandt 7-7627



I N D E X

PAGE

Statement Under Rule 234 ............................ 1

Notice of Appeal .............................................. 2
Order Appealed F r o m .....................................  4
Order to Show Cause, Read in Support of 

Motion .............................................................  7
Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown, Read in Sup­

port of Motion .............................................  8
Affidavit of Jawn A. Sandifer, Read in Sup­

port of Motion .........................................  14
Exhibit “ 1” , Annexed to Foregoing 

Affidavits .................................................  17
Exhibit “ 2” , Annexed to Foregoing 

Affidavits .................................................  20
Petition of Dorothy J. Brown, Read in Sup­

port of Motion .............................................  21
Answer of Respondents, Read in Opposition 

to M otion .........................................................  23
Exhibit A, Annexed to A n sw er..............  31

Answering Affidavit of Ray L. Lindbloom, 
Read in Opposition of Motion .................. 32

Opinion of C. A. Johnson .............................. 34
Stipulation Waiving Certification.................. 35



11

A dditional P apers

to THE
Court op A ppeals

page

Amended Notice of Appeal to Court of Ap­
peals .................................................................  39

Order of R eversa l.....................     41
Judgment of Reversal.......................................  44
Opinion, Appellate Division ............................  47
Stipulation Waiving Certification in Court 

of Appeals .......    49



Appellate Division— Second Department
1

------  ----------------o— -------------------

D orothy J. B ro w n ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.

U nion  F ree S chool D istrict N o. 16, B oard of

E ducation  and B ay  L . L indbloom , Principal,
0

Defendants-Respondents. 
---------------------- o-----------------------2

Statement Under Rule 234

This is an appeal from an order denying the 
plaintiff’s petition to compel the respondent, Dis­
trict Principal of Union Free School District No.
16, in the Town of Hempstead, to submit the 
name of the petitioner to the District Superin­
tendent of Schools and the Board of Education 
of the District for appointment as a teacher and 
to compel the Board to act thereon.

The proceeding was commenced by order to 3 
show cause pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil 
Practice Act upon affidavit on the 4th day of 
October, 1950.

The full names of the original parties appear 
in the above title. There has been no change of 
parties or attorneys herein.



2

4
Notice of Appeal

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF 
NEW YORK

N assau C ou nty

5

------------- ------------------ o , ------- ------------------------

In the Matter of the Application of 
D orothy  J. B ro w n ,

Petitioner,
for an order 

against

R ay  L . L indbloom , Superintendent o f  Public 
Schools in Elmont, U n ion  F ree S chool D is­
trict  N o. 16 and B oard of E ducation ,

Respondents.
-----------------------o-----------------------

Sir:
P lease take notice , that the petitioner, Dorothy 

J. Brown hereby appeals to the Supreme Court, 
Appellate Division, Second Department, from an 
order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, 
entered in the office of the Clerk of the County 
of Nassau, in this proceeding on the 8th day of 
November, 1950, dismissing the proceeding.

Dated, New York, November 13, 1950.



3

Yours, etc.,

J a w n  A. S andieer 
Attorney for Petitioner 

Office & P. 0. Address 
101 West 125th Street 

Borough of Manhattan 
City of New York 

To:
A. H olly  P atterson 

308 Front Street
Hempstead, New York ®

Clerk , S uprem e  Court 
Nassau County

Clerk , S uprem e  Court 
Appellate Division 
Second Department 
Kings County

Notice of Appeal 7

9



4

At a Special Term of the Supreme 
Court (Part 2 for trials) held in 
and for the County of Nassau at 
the County Court House, Mineola, 
Nassau County, New York, on the 
8th day of November, 1950.

Present:
H on . C ortland A . J ohn son ,

Justice.

10
Order Appealed From

11 --------------o--------------

D orothy  J . B ro w n ,

against
Plaintiff,

U n ion  F ree S chool D istrict N o. 16 B oard oe 
E ducation  and B ay L . L indbloom , Principal,

Defendants.

12

In the Matter of the Application of 
D orothy J . B ro w n ,

Petitioner,
for an order 

against

R ay L . L indbloom , Superintendent of Public 
Schools in Elmont, U n ion  F ree S chool D is­
trict No. 16 and B oard oe E ducation ,

Respondents.
--------------------- o----------------------

This proceeding having been brought pursuant 
to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act by the 
above named Dorothy J. Brown, for an order to



5

compel Bay L. Lindbloom as Principal of Union 
Free School District No, 16 of the Town of 
Hempstead to submit her name to the District 
Superintendent of Schools and to the Board of 
Education of such School District for appoint­
ment as a teacher, and to compel the Board of 
Education to act thereon, and having been com­
menced by an order to show cause bearing date 
October 3, 1950 signed by Hon. Cortland A. 
Johnson, Justice of the Supreme Court, return­
able at a term of this Court to be held on the 11th _ .14day of October, 1950, based upon the affidavit of 
said Dorothy J. Brown and the affidavit of Jawn 
A. Sandifer, both sworn to October 3, 1950, and 
plaintiff’s exhibits “ 1”  and “ 2”  attached thereto, 
and subsequently said Dorothy J. Brown having 
served and filed a petition bearing date and veri­
fied October 13, 1950, and the motion having been 
adjourned by stipulation from the 11th day of 
October 1950 to the 19tli day of October, 1950, 
and then coming on to be heard, having been 
argued orally, the respondents having appeared 
on the return day and served and filed an answer 
verified October 18, 1950, with Exhibit “ A ”  at- ^  
tached thereto and the supporting affidavit of 
Bay L. Lindbloom sworn to October 18, 1950, and 
the parties having submitted written briefs,

Now, on reading and filing the order to show 
cause dated October 3, 1950, the affidavits of 
Dorothy J. Brown and Jawn A. Sandifer both 
sworn to October 3, 1950, and exhibits “ 1”  and 
“ 2”  attached to such affidavits, and the petition 
of Dorothy J. Brown dated and verified October 
13, 1950 in support of such application, and the

Order Appealed From 13



6

answer of the respondents verified October 18, 
1950, with Exhibit “ A ”  attached, and the affidavit 
of Ray L. Lindbloom sworn to the 18th day of 
October, 1950, in opposition, and after hearing 
Doles, Sandifer & Johnson, attorneys for the peti­
tioner, Jawn A. Sandifer of counsel, in support 
of petitioner’s application, and A. Holly Patter­
son, Harvey J. George of counsel, for the respond­
ents, opposed, and due deliberation having been 
had, and upon the written decision of the Court 

^  filed herein, it is hereby

Ordered, that p e tit io n e r ’ s a pp lica tion  be and 
the sam e is in  a ll resp ects  den ied  and the pro­
ceed ing  dism issed .

16 Order Appealed From

Enter

Granted 
Nov. 8, 1950

Ch as  E. R ansom  
Clerk

C ortland A. J ohn son ,
J. S. 0.

E ntered

N ov. 8, 1950

C h a s . E . R ansom  
County Clerk of Nassau County



7

Order to Show Cause, Read in Support 19 
of Motion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF 
NEW YORK

Cou nty  of N assau

[S am e  T it l e ]

Upon the annexed affidavits of Dorothy J. 
Brown and Jawn A. Sandifer, Esq., both sworn gg 
to the 3rd day of October, 1950, let the above 
named defendants show cause before this Court 
at a Term to be held at the Courthouse in Mineola, 
County of Nassau, State of New York, on the 11th 
day of October, 1950, at ten o ’clock in the forenoon 
of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be 
heard, why an order should not be made, and en­
tered herein compelling the defendant, Ray L. 
Lindbloom to submit the name of the plaintiff to 
the District Superintendent and to the Board of 
Education of Union Free School District No. 16 
and why the said Board of Education of Union 21 
Free School District No. 16 should not be com­
pelled to act upon the said name of Dorothy J. 
Brown and why the said plaintiff should not be 
granted such other and further relief as to the 
Court may seem just and proper.

Sufficient cause appearing therefor, let service 
of a copy of this order, affidavits and exhibits upon 
which the same was obtained, upon the said Ray 
L. Lindbloom, Principal on or before the 6th day 
of October, 1950, be deemed good and sufficient.

Dated, Mineola, New York: October 3, 1950.
/ s /  C ortland A. J ohnson

J. S. C.



Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown, Read in 
Support of Motion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF 
NEW YORK

C ou nty  of N assau

[S am e  T it l e ]

S tate of N ew  Y ork  ]
pCJCJ •

Co u nty  of N e w  Y ork  y ' *

D orothy J. B ro w n , being duly sworn, deposes 
and says that I am a citizen of the United States, 
resident of Queens County and State of New York 
and reside at #114-91 180th Street, St. Albans, 
New York.

That this affidavit is made in support of the 
deponent’s request for an order compelling Ray 
L. Lindbloom, Principal of Union Free School 
District No. 16 to submit the name of deponent to 
the Local School Board for its consideration for 
a job as teacher within Union Free School District 
No. 16, and for such other and further relief as 
the Court might deem just and proper.

That upon information and belief, and for over 
a period of many years the Board of Education 
of Union Free School District No. 16, in the 
Village of Elmont, Nassau County, has maintained 
a policy, custom and usage of refusing to hire 
Negro school teachers in the school system.

That heretofore the deponent duly qualified as 
a school teacher and met all the requirements 
pertinent thereto, but has been denied employment



9

by the Board of Education of Union Free School 
District No. 16.

That the background to the deponent’s prayer 
for relief is as follows:

That on April 22nd, 1950, deponent went to the 
Belmont Road School to file an application for a 
position as a teacher in the Elmont Public School 
District No. 16.

That at that time deponent was informed that 
there were vacancies in the school and that the 
deponent was greeted with a great deal of en- 
thusiasm and assured that she would be given the 
job at a very early date.

That subsequently on the 26th day of April,
1950, deponent went to see a Mr. Davis, Principal 
of the school personally and Mr. Davis informed 
the deponent that there were two vacancies at 
the school at that time and requested that the 
deponent mail a formal application to him as soon 
as possible.

That during the course of conversation and in­
terview, deponent was asked by Mr. Davis wThat 
deponent’s feeling would be concerning the pres- 27 
ence of Negro children in deponent’s class room, 
in view of the fact that deponent was a Southerner. 
Deponent replied, that she would be very sym­
pathetic with them and could understand the 
problems that were peculiar to them as a group 
because deponent was herself a Negro. It is 
important at this point to inform the Court that 
deponent is a Negro of very fair complexion and 
could be easily. mistaken for a White person.
That up to the time that deponent revealed her 
racial identity she had been mistaken for a person 
of the wdiite race.

Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown 25



That from the date of this interview on the 
26th of April, 1950, up to the present time, depo­
nent has heard nothing from her application. 
On the 27th day of April, 1950, deponent mailed 
a formal application to Mr. Davis and on the 
31st of May, 1950, deponent called personally on 
Mr. Davis to inquire about a possible appoint­
ment and was informed at this time that all va­
cancies were filled.

On June 6th, 1950, deponent had a personal 
interview with Mr. Ray L. Lindbloom, Superin­
tendent of Schools, said interview being at the 
deponent’s request. At this time Mr. Lindbloom 
refused to say whether or not deponent’s appli­
cation was being considered but did inform de­
ponent that in jobs of this nature race, religion 
and personal integrity would be considered. When 
asked whether or not deponent’s application was 
being considered, Mr. Lindbloom responded that 
if it were not being considered deponent would not 
have been called for the interview.

Upon information and belief on the 9th day of 
June, 1950, Mrs. Sabina Haber residing at #335 
Elmont Road, County of Nassau; Mrs. Bedonna 
Merrit of #142 Heathcote Road, Nassau County; 
Mrs. Eleanor Crain of #190 Fallon Avenue, Nas­
sau County, and Ruth May of #170 Heathcote 
Road, Nassau County, called upon the defendant, 
Lindbloom to inquire about deponent’s applica­
tion and upon information and belief the above 
named persons were informed by the defendant, 
Lindbloom that deponent’s qualifications were 
very good but stated in substance to the above 
named persons that, “ This was not the time to

Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown



11

hire a Negro teacher because the people in Elmont
were not ready for one.”

Deponent graduated from the 8th grade at 
Lucretia Mott School, Washington, D. C. in 1928 ; 
Dunbar High School, Washington, D. C. in 1932. 
Holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Education 
from Minor Teacher’s Colloge, Washington, D. 0., 
and has 27 semester hours to her credit in Edu­
cation from Howard University and has 28 semes­
ter hours graduate study toward a Master of Arts 
degree in Early Childhood Education from New ^  
York University. Deponent was appointed in 
May, 1939, to the District of Columbia Public 
School as a regular class room teacher and re­
signed without prejudice in 1949. That during 
the school year of 1949-1950 deponent taught the 
first grade in Kibrig-Poulton School of Great 
Neck, Long Island.

That upon information and belief, at the April,
1950, meeting of the Union Free School District 
No. 16 in Elmont, the Board of Education sub­
mitted for the approval of the voters a budget of 
$651,910.00 for 1950 and submitted in connection gg 
therewith an explanatory note, requesting addi­
tional instructing staff and estimated an increased 
enrollment of over 500 students for which new 
teachers must be provided. In accordance with 
the Laws and Buies of Practice relating to ap­
peals to the Commissioner of Education the de­
ponent through her attorneys, Doles, Sandifer & 
Johnson on the 21st day of August, 1950, served 
upon Bay L. Lindbloom and the Local School 
Board a petition praying for action upon her 
application for a job as teacher in the Local School 
District.

Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown 31



12

That from the 21st day of August, 1950, until 
the 14th day of September, 1950, deponent nor 
her attorneys had any further communications or 
any word from the Local School Board nor from 
the defendant, Bay L. Lindbloom.

That despite the fact that defendants knew that 
time was of the essence and that deponent is suf­
fering irreparable damages no action was taken 
by the Local School Board nor by the defendant, 
Ray L. Lindbloom.

That on the 14th day of September, 1950, de- 
ponent through her attorneys in pursuance of 
Section 310 of the Education Law and the Law 
and Rules of Practice pertaining thereto served 
upon the State Commissioner of Education a pe­
tition seeking the relief heretofore set forth in this 
affidavit and that on the 22nd day of September, 
1950, upon information and belief deponent’s at­
torneys received a communication from the State 
Commissioner of Education informing deponent 
through her attorneys that the Commissioner of 
Education could not take appellate jurisdiction 
in the matter at this time in view of a letter which 
was received by the Commissioner of Education 
dated September 22, 1950, from the President of 
the Board of Education, Union Free School Dis­
trict No. 16 in which the President of the Board 
informed the Commissioner of Education that 
the name of Dorothy J. Brown has not been sub­
mitted to the Local School Board and that the 
Board of Education, of Union Free School District 
No. 16 of the Town of Hempstead, has never had 
the opportunity of passing upon whether it would 
appoint or withhold appointment of the said

34 Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown



13

Dorothy J. Brown. The letter also set forth in­
formation that the defendant, Bay L. Lindbloom 
had failed to submit the name of deponent to the 
District Superintendent for approval and until 
the name is submitted to the Board deponent is 
denied her appellate relief before the State Com­
missioner of Education (see plaintiff’s exhibit 
# 1), and it is for this reason that deponent now 
seeks an order from this Court compelling the 
defendant, Bay L. Lindbloom to submit her name 
to the Local School Board for its consideration.

W herefore, plaintiff prays for an order com­
pelling the said Bay L. Lindbloom to submit her 
name to the Local School Board and for such 
other and further relief as the Court might deem 
just and proper, for all of which no previous 
application has been made.

Affidavit of Dorothy J. Brown

D orothy  J. B rown  

(Sworn to October 3rd, 1950.)

39



14

Affidavit of Jawn A. Sandifer, Read in 
Support of Motion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF 
NEW YORK

C ou nty  of N assau

40

[S am e  T it l e ]

S tate of N ew  Y ork  }
Cou nty  of N e w  Y ork ) ' '

J a w n  A. S andifer , being duly sworn, deposes 
and says, that I am the attorney for Dorothy J. 
Brown and am familiar with all the proceedings 
heretofore had.

That this is an application for an order com­
pelling Ray L. Lindbloom and the Board of Edu­
cation of Union Free School District No. 16 to 
act upon the name of Dorothy J. Brown who is 
duly qualified in all respects as a school teacher 
and who has been obviously denied the relief 

42 sought purely because of her race and color.
That in accordance with the Law and Rules of 

Practice relating to Appeals to the Commissioner 
of Education, the plaintiff through her attorneys 
served upon Ray L. Lindbloom on the 21st day 
of August, 1950, a petition and affidavits.

That from the date of service until the 14th of 
September, 1950, deponent nor any of the mem­
bers of his law office received any direct com­
munication from the defendant, Ray L. Lindbloom 
or the Local School Board.



15

That on the 14th day of September, 1950, de­
ponent filed an appeal with the State Commis­
sioner of Education in accordance with the Rules 
of Practice relating to appeals to the Commis­
sioner of Education and on the 22nd day of Sep­
tember, 1950, deponent received a communication 
from the State Commissioner’s office, a copy of 
which is attached hereto and marked, plaintiff’s 
exhibit 2, in which the deponent was informed 
that the Commissioner of Education only had ap­
pellate jurisdiction in such matters and that until  ̂
there had been a local determination that the 
aggrieved person thereby would have a right of 
appeal to the Commissioner pursuant to Section 
310 of the Education Law.

That the letter from the Commissioner of Edu­
cation also enclosed a copy of the letter written 
to the State Commissioner by the President of 
the Union Free School District No. 16 and in this 
letter sent to the Commissioner the President of 
the Board informed the Commissioner that the 
name of the plaintiff, Dorothy J. Brown, although 
her application was filed in April, 1950, had never r 
been submitted to this Board and that the Local 
Board of Union Free School District No. 16 had 
never had the opportunity of passing upon the 
appointment of the plaintiff and that Ray L. 
Lindbloom had failed to submit her name to the 
District Superintendent for approval. It is there­
fore submitted that unless this Court grants the 
relief sought by the plaintiff that simple but ar­
bitrary refusal and inaction on the part of the 
Superintendent of Schools, Ray L. Lindbloom and 
the Local Board, the plaintiff will be denied her

Affidavit of Jcmn A. Sandifer 41



appellate relief to the Commissioner of Educa­
tion.

W hebefobe, deponent joins with the plaintiff in 
seeking an order to compel the defendant, Eay L. 
Lindbloom to submit the name of the plaintiff to 
the Local School Board for its consideration so 
that the plaintiff will be enabled to appropriately 
appeal to the Commissioner of Education pursu­
ant to Section 310 of the Education Law.

/ s /  J aw n  A. S andifeb

Affidavit of Jcmn A. Sandifer

(Sworn to October 3, 1950.)



Exhibit “ 1” , Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits

September 22, 1950

Commissioner of Education 
State Office Building 
Albany, New York

Dear Commissioner:
Union Free School District No. 16, Town of 

Hempstead is within the Second Supervisory Dis­
trict of Nassau County and has no Superintendent 
of Schools but does employ Bay L. Lindbloom as 50 
Principal of the District, commonly referred to 
as the Supervising* Principal of Schools.

At a meeting of the Board of Education held 
September 21, 1950, Mr. Lindbloom presented for 
the Board’s consideration a letter addressed to 
Union Free School District No. 16, Att. Mr. 
Lindbloom, Superintendent, under date of Sep­
tember 14, 1950 from Messrs. Doles, Sandifer & 
Johnson, Attorneys, which was received by him on 
September 18, 1950, a copy of which is enclosed, 
together with the enclosure, a carbon copy of a 
letter addressed to the State Commissioner of 51 
Education dated September 14. 1950, written by 
such attorneys.

At the same time he presented to the Board a 
petition addressed to the Board of Education of 
Union Free School District No. 16, Elmont, Nas­
sau County, New York, signed and verified by 
Dorothy J. Brown, which was served upon him 
by such attorneys some time late in August and 
which is referred to in the letter addressed to the 
Commissioner of Education from said attorneys.



18

52 Exhibit “ 1” , Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits

Mr. Lindbloom also advised the Board of hav­
ing received on August 29, 1950, a letter from the 
State Commission Against Discrimination advis­
ing* of a complaint filed against him by Mrs. 
Dorothy J. Brown alleging discrimination by him 
and the Elmont Board of Education in that Mr. 
Lindbloom refused to hire her as a school teacher 
because of her color. He further advised of hav­
ing appeared before Commissioner Robert H. 
Thayer on September 20, 1950 in response to such 
letter and with reference to such pending com-

53 plaint. (Case No. C-2530-50.)
The Board of Education has considered the 

petition and the complaint and has delegated to 
me the duty of informing you of its position in 
view of the letter addressed to you by Doles, 
Sandifer & Johnson, attorneys for Dorothy J. 
Brown, under date of September 14, 1950.

This Board, as you know, is only empowered to 
appoint members of the teaching staff upon rec­
ommendation of the District Superintendent of 
Schools from lists submitted to such District 
Superintendent by the Principal of the District. 
The name of Dorothy J. Brown has not been 
submitted to this Board, so that the Board of 
Education of Union Free School District No. 16, 
Town of Hempstead, has never had the oppor­
tunity of passing upon whether it would appoint 
or withhold appointment of said Dorothy J. 
Brown.

The Board has gone on record and has main­
tained the policy over many years of considering 
the appointment to its teaching staff of all quali­
fied teachers regardless of race, creed, color or 
national origin and will continue such practice so



19

Exhibit “ 1” , Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits 55

long as the writer and the present personnel of 
the Board continue in office.

Mr. Lindbloom has advised the Board that he 
was not motivated by any prejudice against said 
Dorothy J. Brown in failing- to submit her name 
to the District Superintendent for approval, after 
his consideration of her application. The Board 
has full confidence in Mr. Lindbloom’s integrity.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  A n t h o n y  B arbiero 56 
President of the Board of 
Education, Union Free School 
District No. 16, Town of 
Hempstead, Nassau Co., N. Y.

Cc—Messrs. Doles, Sandifer & Johnson



20

58
Exhibit “2” , Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits

T he  U niversity  of th e  S tate of N ew  Y ork 
T he  S tate E ducation  D epartm ent  

Albany 1
D ivision  of L aw

September 22, 1950
Mr. Jawn A. Sandifer 
Doles, Sandifer & Johnson 
Attorneys at Law 
101 West 125th Street

59 New York 27, New York
Dear Mr. Sandifer:

This will acknowledge your letter of September 
14, addressed to the Commissioner of Education, 
enclosing the petition of Dorothy J. Brown ad­
dressed to the Board of Education of Union Free 
School District No. 16 of the Town of Hempstead.

The Commissioner of Education has only ap­
pellate jurisdiction in a matter such as that about 
which you write. When a determination by the 
local board of education has been made, a person

60 aggrieved thereby would have a right of appeal 
to the Commissioner pursuant to Section 310 of 
the Education Law. In presenting such an appeal, 
it would be necessary to conform to the enclosed 
rules of practice.

I am returning herewith the petition and affi­
davits submitted.

Very truly yours,
/ s /  E lizabeth  M. E astman  

Elizabeth M. Eastman
E:L



21

Petition of Dorothy J. Brown, Read in 
Support of Motion

SUPREME COURT 

N assau County

[S ame T itle ]

To the Supreme Court of the State of New York:
G2The petition of Dorothy J. Brown, respectfully 

alleges:

1. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned, 
Dorothy J. Brown was and now is duly qualified 
to teach in the school system of District No. 16, 
Village of Elmont, Nassau County, New York, and 
that Ray L. Lindbloom is the Superintendent.

2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned pe­
titioner Dorothy J. Brown duly applied for a 
position and submitted her qualifications.

63
3. Up until the time that the respondent, Ray 

L. Lindbloom discovered that petitioner was a 
Negro, petitioner’s qualifications were approved, 
but upon discovery Ray L. Lindbloom unlawfully 
refused and failed to certify petitioner’s name 
to the School Board for the position sought.

4. That petitioner was unlawfully and illegally 
denied consideration by the respondent, Ray L. 
Lindbloom solely because of her race and color.



22

Petition of Dorothy J. Brown

5. That the said respondent knew at the time 
and prior to the date of this petition, that peti­
tioner was duly qualified in all respects for the 
position sought.

6. That the facts of petitioner’s case are fully 
set forth in the form of an affidavit attached 
hereto.

7. That no previous application has been made 
for the relief hereby sought.

W herefore, petitioner prays for an order com­
manding the above named respondent to submit 
the name of the petitioner to the Local School 
Board for its consideration for petitioner to teach 
within the system and for such other and further 
relief as is just and proper, together with costs 
and disbursements of this proceeding.

Dated, New York: October 13, 1950.

66
/ s /  D orothy J. B row n

(Verified by Dorothy J. Brown as Petitioner 
on October 13, 1950.)



23

Answer of Respondents, Read in Opposition 
to Motion

SUPREME COURT 

N assau C ounty

67

[S am e  T itle ]

The respondents for answer to the petition 
herein. gg

F irst: Deny each and every allegation of para­
graphs numbered and designated “ 1” , “ 3 ” , “ 4 ” ,
“ 5” , “ 6” , and “ 7”  thereof.

T h e  R espondents F u rth er  A nsw ering , A l l e g e :

Second: That the respondent, Union Free
School District No. 16 of the Town of Hempstead, 
Nassau County, New York is a Union Free School 
District organized and existing pursuant to the 
Education Law of the State of New York as a gg 
Union Free School District and is located within 
the Second Supervisory District of Nassau 
County and has no Superintendent of Schools hut 
does employ the respondent, Ray L. Lindbloom as 
Principal of the District, commonly referred to 
as the Supervising Principal of Schools.

Third: That the appointment and employment 
of teachers in Union Free School District No. 16 
of the Town of Hempstead is regulated by the pro-



24

70 Answer of Respondents

visions of the Education Law, particularly Section 
3013, as follows:

“ 1. Teachers, principals, except principals 
of the district, supervisors and all other mem­
bers of the teaching and supervising staff, 
of school districts employing eight or more 
teachers, other than city school districts and 
school districts having a population of four 
thousand five hundred or more and employing 
a superintendent of schools, shall be appointed

71 hy a majority vote of the board of education 
or trustees upon recommendation of the dis­
trict superintendent of schools from lists sub­
mitted to such district superintendent by the 
principal of the district in which they are to 
be employed for a probationary period of 
not to exceed five years. Any principal of the 
district, however, shall be appointed by such 
school authorities upon the recommendation 
of the district superintendent of schools. 
Services of a person so appointed to any such 
positions may be discontinued at any time

72 during such probationary period, upon the 
recommendation of the district superintend­
ent, by a majority vote of the board of educa­
tion or trustees.”

Fourth: That in the course of his duties to find 
and recommend teachers for the consideration of 
the District Superintendent of Schools of the 
Second Supervisory District, the respondent, 
Ray L. Lindbloom during the year 1950 and prior 
to the commencement of the school term in Sep­
tember of 1950 received approximately two hun-



25

dred (200) applications for positions to the teach­
ing staff in such School District, and interviewed 
or caused to be interviewed approximately one 
hundred and fifty (150) applicants. That ap­
proximately thirty-nine (39) appointments were 
made by the Board of Education from the appli­
cations received after recommendation by the 
Principal of the District to the District Superin­
tendent of Schools, and upon the recommendation 
of the District Superintendent of Schools; all such 
appointments being made were for a probationary ^  
period of three (3) years.

F ifth : That the respondent, Ray L. Lindbloom
in his capacity as Principal of Union Free School 
District No. 16 of the Town of Hempstead did 
receive an application from Dorothy J. Brown, 
the petitioner herein, sometime during the month 
of April, 1950. That the application was con­
sidered and the applicant’s credentials from the 
Placement Bureau of New York University were 
sent for and received sometime during the month 
of May, 1950. That an appointment was made ^
with the applicant and the petitioner was per- '
sonally interviewed by the respondent, Ray L. 
Lindbloom on or about the 6th day of June, 1950.
That at the time of her application and at the 
time of the personal interview the petitioner had 
not received her Certificate of. Eleedbilitv as a 
teacher and had not obtained same until on or 
about August 8, 195£L

That in the personal interview with Mrs. Brown 
the respondent Lindbloom informed her that all 
applications were considered as possibilities for

Answer of Respondents 73



Answer of Respondents

appointment until the opening of school in Sep­
tember as experience had shown that openings 
due to resignations or leaves of absence occurred 
in the District until school actually opened. Ac­
tually, however, there is no approval of any par­
ticular applicant or his or her qualification until 
a list is submitted to the District Superintendent 
of Schools for his recommendation prior to sub­
mission to the Board of Education for actual ap­
pointment on probation.

Sixth: After respondent, Bay L. Lindbloom
had personally interviewed said Dorothy J. Brown 
pursuant to her application he continued his in­
vestigation as to her suitability for recommenda­
tion for appointment having* in view his re­
sponsibility to secure the best qualified teachers 
for the District by checking carefully and weigh­
ing each applicant’s certification, professional 
competence, personal characteristics, ability to 
command the respect of pupils, faculty and par­
ents, their social and emotional stability and 
standards of professional ethics, so that when any 
applicant is recommended the District Superin­
tendent could faithfully rely upon deponent’s 
recommendation of his approval and the Board 
of Education could conscientiously appoint those 
applicants submitted and approved by the District 
Superintendent.

During the course of the respondent’s continued 
investigation of said Dorothy J. Brown he was in­
formed that on or about June 8, 1950 the said 
applicant had attended a meeting with several 
residents in the School District who were meeting



27

with the idea of forming a group to press for her 
appointment. On June 9, 1950 a committee of 
four people including Mrs. Sabena Haber, Mrs. 
Eleanor Crain, Mrs. Medina Merritt and Mrs. 
Euth May called upon the respondent, Bay L. 
Lindbloom with regard to the petitioner’s ap­
plication. On June 16,1950, a Mrs. Arthur Rossof 
and others, whom the respondent is informed and 
believes is part of the group who had met previ­
ously with the idea of pressing for the appoint­
ment of said Dorothy J. Brown, attended at a 
regular meeting of the Board of Education and 
demanded a statement of policy regarding the 
Board’s hiring of Negro teachers, and during the 
course of discussion stated that said Dorothy J. 
Brown had applied for a teaching position and 
had been turned down. It is not a fact that said 
applicant was turned down at such time. Her 
application was still being considered and no list 
had been forwarded to the District Superintend­
ent. Following the appearance of this committee 
before the members of the Board of Education 
with reference to said Dorothy J. Brown and her 
application, a letter was addressed to Mrs. Rossof 81 
by the President of the Board of Education, and 
the same, together with the policy of the Board 
with reference to appointments of teachers was 
spread upon the minutes of the Board of Edca- 
tion at a meeting held June 27, 1950, a copy of 
which is attached and marked “ Exhibit A ” . Fol­
lowing the meeting of the Board on June 16, 1950 
your respondent, Ray L. Lindbloom took steps to 
definitely confirm the report that said Dorothy J. 
Brown had been present at a meeting of this 
group and that outside interests were involved in

Answer of Respondents 79



28

an attempt to high pressure the recommendation 
and appointment of said Dorothy J. Brown to the 
teaching staff of Union Free School District No. 
16.

Seventh: That no recommendations for ap­
pointment of teachers from Union Free School 
District No. 16 were made by the respondent, 
Ray L. Lindbloom as Principal of said School 
District to the District Superintendent of Schools 
in the Second Supervisory District of the County 
of Nassau following the receipt of Mrs. B rown’s 
credentials in May, until on or about July 10,1950. 
That no appointments were made by the Board 
of Education pursuant to the recommendation 
of the District Principal ancLthe District Super­
intendent of Schools untile on or about July 13, 
1950. Subsequent_apgointments were made on 
similar recommendations on August 17, 1950 and 
again on September 6, 1950 when all positions 
for qualified teachers were filled.

Eighth: That the respondent, Ray L. Lind-
84 bloom did not recommend to the District Superin­

tendent of Schools the name of Dorothy J. Brown 
for his approval as a member of the teaching 
staff of Union Free School District No. 16.

Ninth: That the respondent, Ray L. Lindbloom 
withheld his recommendation of said Dorothy J. 
Brown for approval by the District Superintend­
ent of Schools after careful consideration of her 
application, after such personal interview with 
her, and after deciding that such applicant was 
not the best qualified teacher available and had

82 Answer of Respondents



Answer of Respondents

permitted herself to become a party to a high 
pressure group seeking to force her recommenda­
tion and appointment as a member of the teaching 
staff in the School District.

Tenth: That at no time during the considera­
tion of the application of said Dorothy J. Brown 
or in failing to submit her name to the District 
Superintendent of Schools for appointment to the 
teaching staff of said School District was the re­
spondent, Ray L. Lindbloom moved or motivated 
by the fact that the applicant was of the Negro 
race or by any other consideration involving the 
applicant’s race, creed, color or national origin.

T he  R espondents F u rth er  A n sw ering , A l l e g e :

Eleventh: That the said Dorothy J. Brown,
petitioner herein, prior to August 28, 1950, filed 
a complaint with the State Commission Against 
Discrimination against respondent, Ray L. Lind- 
bloom, alleging discrimination by him and the 
Elmont Board of Education against said com­
plainant in that they refused to hire her as a 
school teacher because of her color. That such 
complaint is still pending, undetermined.

T h e  R espondents F urther , A nsw ering , A llege :

Twelfth: That the petition herein and the sup­
porting- affidavits fail to state or allege facts, suf­
ficient as a matter of law, to entitle the petitioner 
to an order requiring the respondent, Ray L. 
Lindbloom to submit the name of petitioner to the



30

District Superintendent of Schools and to recom­
mend her for appointment to the teaching staff of 
Union Free School No. 16 of the Town of Hemp­
stead, or for an order requiring the Board of 
Education of said School District to pass upon 
petitioner’s name for appointment to the teaching 
staff of said School District, or any other relief 
in the premises.

88 Answer of Respondents

89

W herefore, respon den ts dem and that the p e ti­
tion  be dism issed.

A. H olly  P atterson ,
Attorney for Respondents,

Office & P. 0. Address,
308 Front Street, 

Hempstead, N. T.

(Verified on October 18, 1950 by Ray L. Lind- 
bloom as one of Respondents.)

90



Exhibit A, Annexed to Answer

From the Minutes of the Board of Education of 
June 27, 1950.

Motion made by Mr. Bruton, and seconded by 
Doctor Stewart that the Board ratifies, confirms 
and approves the action of the President of the 
Board in signing following letter sent to Mrs. 
Arthur Rosoff of 8 Silver Street, Elmont, which 
also expresses the sentiment of the Board:

“ Mrs. Arthur Rosoff 
8 Silver Street 
Elmont, N. Y.
Dear Mrs. Rossoff:

I have discussed with all my fellow members 
on the Board of Education, the matter you 
brought up at the Board meeting last eve­
ning*.
I assure you that the Board has never dis­
criminated against any applicant, and that 
they will not be moved by prejudice against 
any applicant in our school system by reason 
of race, color or creed.

We are unanimous in our efforts to secure 
the best qualified teachers and to comply with 
the law in every respect.”

Signed by
F ranklin W. L opez, President 

Board of Education, School District 
No. 16, Elmont, New York.

Joseph A. Bruton voted Aye
Dr. Ursula Stewart voted Aye
John R. Collins voted Aye
Leo Garcia voted Aye
George A. Wahl voted Aye
Chairman voted Aye

Motion declared carried.



32

Answering Affidavit of Ray L. Lindbloom, 
Read in Opposition of Motion

SUPREME COURT 
N assau C ou nty

94

[S am e  T it l e ]

S tate  op N ew  Y ork }
v iSS *'

gg  Co u nty  op N assau ]

R ay  L . L indbloom , being duly sworn, deposes 
and says: This affidavit is made in support of
the answer of the respondents verified the 18th 
day of October, 1950. That all the statements 
contained in such answer are true to deponent’s 
knowledge. That at no time did deponent state to 
Dorothy J. Brown, petitioner herein, that in con­
sidering applicants for positions to the teaching 
staff your deponent would consider the question 
of race and religion of the applicant. That at no 
time did deponent state and particularly he did 

^  not state on June 9, 1950 to Mrs. Sabena Haber, 
Mrs. Medina Merritt, Mrs. Eleanor Crain and 
Mrs. Ruth May, or any one of them, “ That this 
was not the time to hire a Negro teacher because 
the people in Elrnont were not ready for one” . 
That in considering the application of Dorothy J . 
Brown, the petitioner herein, your deponent was 
impressed with her educational attainments, 
pleased with many of her personal characteristics 
and was considering recommending her for ap-



33

Answering Affidavit of Ray L. Lindbloom 97

pointment. When he ascertained that there was 
a move on foot of which she seemed to be a party, 
to high pressure her appointment, your deponent 
declined further consideration of her application 
believing that anyone whose professional ethics 
permitted her to attempt to secure a position in 
this manner is not qualified or deserving of ap­
pointment to the Public Schools of Union Free 
School District No. 16.

E a t  L . L indbloom  

(Sworn to October 18, 1950.)
98

99



34

100 Opinion of C. A. Johnson

(Dated November 2, 1950 ) 
SUPREME COURT 

N assau C o u nty  

Cal. No. 280— 10/11/50

[S am e  T it l e ]

In this proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil 
Practice Act, the petitioner seeks an order to 
compel the respondent Principal of Union Free 
School District No. 16, in the Town of Hempstead, 
to submit the name of the petitioner to the Dis­
trict Superintendent of Schools and to the Board 
of Education of the District for appointment as a 
teacher and to compel the Board to act thereon.

In the summer of 1950, the petitioner was one of 
some 200 applicants for teaching* positions in the 
School District. Some 39 such applicants received 
probationary appointments. It is the petitioner’s 
contention that she was refused appointment 
solely because she was of colored blood. On all 
the proof before the Court, that does not appear 
to be the fact. The petitioner has not a clear, 
legal right to the relief she seeks. The selection 
by the Principal of 39 probationary appointees 
from among some 200 applicants, of whom 150 
were interviewed, involved a high degree of dis­
cretion, and with the respondent’s exercise thereof 
the Court does not feel justified upon this record 
to interfere.

The proceeding will, accordingly, be dismissed.
Submit order.

J. S. C.



Stipulation Waiving Certification

Pursuant to Section 170 of the Civil Practice 
Act, it is hereby stipulated that the foregoing 
consists of true and correct copies of the Notice 
of Appeal, Order Appealed Prom, Petition and 
Affidavits of Dorothy J. Brown and exhibits in 
support of the petition, the Answer and Answer­
ing Affidavits of Ray L. Lindbloom and the Elmont 
School Board opposed thereto; and the whole 
thereof now on file in the office of the Clerk, of 
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 
County of Nassau; and the certification thereof 
by Clerk pursuant to Section 616 of the Civil 
Practice Act is hereby waived.

Dated, January , 1951.

J aw n  A. S andifer 
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant.

A. H olly P atterson 
Attorney for Defendants-Respondents.



ADDITIONAL PAPERS 
TO THE

COURT OF APPEALS



39

Amended Notice of Appeal to Court 
of Appeals

115

SUPREME COURT

Co u nty  of N assau

-------------------- o--------------------

D orothy  J. B ro w n ,
Plaintiff,

against

U nion  F ree S chool D istrict  No. 16, B oard of 
E ducation , and R ay  L . L indbloom , Principal, 116

Defendants.

In the Matter of the Application of 
D orothy  J. B ro w n ,

Petitioner-Respondent,

for an Order
against

R ay  L . L indbloom , Superintendent of Public 
Schools in Elmont, U n ion  F ree S chool D is­
trict  No. 16, and B oard of E ducation , 117

Respondents-Appellants.

-------- -------- --------------o— — -— -------------

P lease take  notice that the respondents, Ray 
L. Lindbloom and the Board of Education of 
Union Free School District No. 16, hereby appeal 
to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, 
from the order made in the Appellate Division, 
Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department, and 
entered in the Office of the Clerk of said Appel­
late Division on the 12th day of March, 1951, which 
said order reversed on the law an order of this



40

118 Amended Notice of Appeal

court dismissing the petitioner’s petition herein 
and denying- her application and which order of 
reversal directed the respondent, Ray L. Lind- 
bloom to furnish to the District Superintendent of 
Schools a list of applicants, including the peti­
tioner’s name, for appointment as teachers, and 
which order of reversal was duly entered in the 
Office of the Clerk of the County of Nassau on the 
16th day of March, 1951, and from each and 
every part of said order of reversal.

119 T a k e  fu rth er  notice  that said Respondents 
hereby appeal to the Court of Appeals of the 
State of New York from the Judgment of Re­
versal entered pursuant to such Order in the 
Office of the Clerk of the County of Nassau on the 
17th day of April, 1951.

Dated: April 19th, 1951.

A. H olly  P atterson , 
Attorney for Ray L. Lindbloom and 

Board of Education of Union Free 
School District No. 16, Town of

120 Hempstead,
Office & Post Office Address,

308 Front Street,
Hempstead, New York.

T o :
Clerk  of t h e  C ou nty  of N assau .

J a w n  A. S andifer , Esq.,
D oles, S andifer & J ohn son , Esqrs.,

Attorneys for Dorothy J. Brown, Petitioner, 
Office & Post Office Address,
101 West 125th Street,
New York City, New York.



41

At a Term of the Appellate Division 
of the Supreme Court of the State 
of New York held in and for the 
Second Judicial Department at the 
Borough of Brooklyn, on the 12th 
day of March, 1951.

Present:
H o n . J ohn  B. J ohn ston ,

Acting Presiding Justice,
“  F ran k  F . A del,
“  C harles W . U . S need,
“  H en ry  Gl. W en zel , J r .,

“  J o h n  M aoCrate,
Justices.

Order of Reversal

o

D orothy  J . B ro w n ,

vs.
Plaintiff,

U n ion  F ree S chool D istrict  N o. 16, B oard of 
E ducation , and B ay  L . L indbloom , Principal,

Defendants.

In the Matter of the Application of 
D orothy  J . B row n ,

Appellant,
for an Order

123

against

B ay  L. L indbloom , Superintendent of Public 
Schools in Elmont, Union Free School District 
No. 16, and B oard of E ducation ,

Bespondents.

The above named Dorothy J. Brown, the peti­
tioner in the above entitled proceeding having



42

appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme 
Court from an Order of the Supreme Court en­
tered in the office of the Clerk of the County of 
Nassau on the 8th day of November, 1950, deny­
ing petitioner’s application to compel Ray L. 
Lindbloom to submit her name to the District 
Superintendent of Schools and to the Board of 
Education of Union Free School District No. 16 
for appointment as a teacher and to compel said 
Board of Education to act thereon, and dismissing 
the proceeding, herein, and the said appeal having- 
been submitted by Mr. Jawn A. Sandifer of Coun­
sel for appellant, and argued by Mr. Harvey J. 
George of Counsel for respondents, and due de­
liberation having been had thereon, and upon the 
opinion and decision slip of the court herein, 
heretofore filed:

I t  is O rdered that the order so appealed from 
be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed 
on the Law, with $50. costs and disbursements, 
and the application granted, without costs, to the 
extent of directing respondent Ray L. Lindbloom 

126 to furnish to the District Superintendent of 
Schools a list of applicants, including appellant’s 
name, for appointment as teachers, from which 
list the District Superintendent of Schools may 
exercise discretion in making- recommendations 
to the Board of Education for appointment.

Enter:

J oh n  J . Callah an , 
Clerk.

124 Order of Reversal



43

S tjprbmB' C ourt op t h e  S tate op N ew  Y ork , ]
Appellate Division, [

Second Judicial Department, f
Clerk’s Office, Borough of Brooklyn, N. Y. J

I , J o h n  J. Calla h a n , Clerk of the Appellate 
Division of the Supreme Court of the State of 
New York in the Second Judicial Department, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a copy of 
the order made by said court upon the Appeal in 
the above entitled proceeding, and entered in my 
office on the 12th day of March, 1951, and that 
the original record upon which said appeal was 
heard is hereto annexed.

In W itness W hereof, I have hereunto set my 
hand and affixed the seal of said Court, at the 
Borough of Brooklyn, this 13th day of March,
1951.

Clerk.

Entered in Nassau County Clerk’s Office,
March 16, 1951.

C harles E. B ansom ,
Clerk of the County of Nassau.

Order of Reversal 1̂ <

129



44

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF 
NEW YORK

Co u n ty  of N assau

Judgment of Reversal

-------------- O'--------------
D orothy  J. B ro w n , 

against
Plaintiff,

131 ^ NI0N F ree S chool D istrict  N o. 16, B oard of 
E ducation , and R ay  L. L indbloom , Principal,

Defendants.

In the Matter of the Application of 
D orothy  J. B ro w n ,

Appellant,

for an Order 

against

jo;2 R ay  L . L indbloom , Superintendent of Public 
Schools in Elmont, U nion  F ree S chool D is­
trict  No. 16, and B oard of E ducation ,

Respondents.
■--------- -------------o----------------------

The plaintiff-appellant in the above entitled 
proceeding having appealed to the Appellate Divi­
sion of the Supreme Court from an order of the 
Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk 
of the County of Nassau on the 8th day of Novem­
ber, 1950, denying the petitioner’s application to



45

compel Bay L. Lindbloom to submit her name to 
the District Superintendent of Schools and to the 
Board of Education of Union Free School District 
No. 16 for appointment as a teacher and to compel 
said Board of Education to act thereon, and dis­
missing the proceeding, herein, and the said ap­
peal having been submitted by Mr. Jawn A. 
Sandifer of Counsel for appellant, and argued by 
Mr. Harvey J. George of Counsel for respond­
ents, and due deliberation having been had there­
on, and upon the opinion and decision slip of the 
court herein, heretofore filed; it is hereby

Obdebed, that the o rd er  so appealed  fro m  be 
and the sam e h ereby  is  unan im ously  reversed  on 
the law, w ith  $50.00 costs and $117.52 d isbu rse­
m ents m aking a tota l o f  $167.52, and it is fu rth er

Obdebed, that the application be granted with­
out costs, to the extent of directing respondent 
Ray L. Lindbloom to furnish to the District Super­
intendent of Schools a list of applicants, includ­
ing appellant’s name, for appointment as teachers, 
from which list the District Superintendent of 
Schools may exercise discretion in making recom­
mendations to the Board of Education for appoint­
ment ; and it is further

O bdebed and  A djudged, that the plaintiff-appel­
lant, Dorothy J. Brown, residing at #114-91180th 
Street, St. Albans, New York, recover of and from 
Union Free School District No. 16 Board of 
Education and Bay L. Lindbloom, Principal, and 
Bay L. Lindbloom, Superintendent of Public 
Schools in Elmont, Union Free School District

Judgment of Reversal



46

No. 16 and Board of Education, Defendants and 
respondents, with administration offices at Elmont 
Road, Elmont, Nassau County, New York, the 
sum of one hundred sixty-seven and 52/100 
($167.52) Dollars for costs allowed and disburse­
ments as taxed, and that the said plaintiff-appel­
lant, Dorothy J. Brown, have execution therefor.

Dated April 17, 1951.

136 Judgment of Reversal

137
Ch a s . E. R ansom , 

Clerk.

138



47

Opinion, Appellate Division

Mar. 12, 1951

----------------------o-----------------------

D orothy  J. B ro w n ,
Plaintiff,

v.

139

U nion  F ree S chool D istrict  N o. 16, B oard of 
E ducation , and B ay  L . L indrloom , Principal,

Defendants.

In the Matter of the Application of 
D orothy  J. B ro w n ,

Appellant,
for an Order 

against

B ay  L . L indbloom , Superintendent o f  Public 
Schools in Elmont, Union Free School District 
N o. 16, and B oard of E ducation ,

Bespondents.
---------------------- o-------------- --------

This is a proceeding under article 78 of the 
Civil Practice Act to compel respondent Lind­
bloom (principal of the school district) to submit 
appellant’s name to the district superintendent 
of schools and to the board of education, and for 
other relief. She appeals from an order dismiss­
ing her petition, the court holding that the selec­
tion by the principal of 39 probationary appointees



48

142 Opinion, Appellate Division

from, among 150 applicants interviewed involved 
a high degree of discretion, with the exercise of 
which the court would not interfere.

Order reversed on the law, with $50. costs and 
disbursements, and the application granted, with­
out costs, to the extent of directing respondent 
Lindbloom to furnish to the district superintend­
ent of schools a list of applicants, including 
appellant’s name, for appointment as teachers, 
from which list the district superintendent of 
schools may exercise discretion in making recom-

143 mendations to the Board of Education for ap­
pointment.

In our opinion, section 3013, subdivision 1, of 
the Education Law requires the principal to in­
clude the names of all applicants for appointment 
in the lists he is required to furnish to the district 
superintendent of schools. The principal is vested 
with no discretion to determine who shall be rec­
ommended for appointment. Such discretion is 
vested solely in the district superintendent of 
schools. (Matter of Millicker v. Board of Educa­
tion of Central School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of

144 Carmel & Putnam Valley, 275 App. Div. 849, affd. 
300 N. Y. 634.)

Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel 
and MacCrate, JJ., concur.



49

145
Stipulation Waiving Certification in 

Court of Appeals

Pursuant to Section 170 of the Civil Practice Act, 
I t  is hereby  stipulated  and agreed by and be­

tween the undersigned that the preceding printed 
papers consist of true and correct copies of the 
Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals, the 
Order of Reversal appealed from and the printed 
record upon which the Appellate Division acted 
in making the Order of Reversal, and the whole 
thereof, on file in the Office of the Clerk of the 
County of Nassau.

Certification thereof pursuant to Section 616 of 
the Civil Practice Act is hereby waived.

146

Dated: April 1951.

A. H olly  P atterson , 
Attorney for Ray L. Lindbloom and 

Board of Education, Union Free 
School District No. 16, Town of 
Hempstead, Appellants.

J a w n  A. S andieer, 
Attorney for Dorothy J. Brown, 

Respondent.

147