The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1-11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 were read on this motion to/for VACATE — DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION The cross-motion to dismiss the petition, which seeks to vacate a determination by a hearing officer and to terminate respondent, is granted. Background Respondent is a tenured teacher and has worked for petitioner since 2001. He insists that he had no prior disciplinary history in his long teaching career until petitioner brought charges against him arising out of purported misconduct that occurred during the 2019-2020 school year. A hearing officer was appointed to evaluate the charges and hear testimony. Seven charges were filed against respondent. The vast majority involved allegations that respondent engaged in improper physical contact with students, such as slapping or striking students, or used threatening language towards students and a fellow teacher. Petitioner insisted that this unwarranted physical force constituted misconduct that necessitated his termination. In detailing the positions of the parties, the hearing officer noted that “Respondent denies all specifications against him but admits to unprofessional conduct in playing and joking with students, for which he is remorseful” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 at 4). She added that “The Department takes the position that all specifications have been proven by credible and reliable testimony. Multiple witnesses plus video evidence show that Respondent got physical with his students” (id.). The hearing officer stressed that “At the outset, it should be noted that, as Respondent argues and the Department acknowledges, the evidence received in connection with some of the allegations in this case is largely of a hearsay nature because much of it is contained in written statements included in the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) reports made during the investigations of the incidents” (id.). “Hearsay evidence is often admitted in these proceedings for what it is worth. It is not worth much unless it can be corroborated by other competent evidence in the record which may include documents, admissions, facts and events” (id.). The hearing officer reviewed each of the seven charges and concluded that “After a careful review of the hearing record, exhibits, transcript, and provided awards whether specifically addressed or not, I find that the Department has not carried its burden by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to all Specifications. However, the Department has established misconduct in that Respondent exercised poor judgment and unprofessional behavior by inappropriate contact while engaged in horseplay with students” (id. at 9). She imposed a penalty of $1,000 (id.). The hearing officer noted that “I do not find sufficient record support to sustain termination. Respondent has worked as a teacher with the Department for over twenty years with an unblemished record. And while it is concluded that Respondent made inappropriate contact and exercised poor judgement by engaging in horseplay with students, the record reflects that he is remorseful and has learned his lesson” (id.). Petitioner dislikes the hearing officer’s review of the evidence and the testimony and demands that respondent be fired. It insists that the hearing officer “exceeded her power under the Education Law when she found every charge and specification unsubstantiated but still imposed a monetary penalty” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12 at 3). Petitioner insists that the penalty imposed here is insufficient and will not deter respondent from engaging in future misconduct. Petitioner complains that the hearing officer’s determination violates public policy by imposing a penalty based on charges that were not alleged. Respondent cross-moves to dismiss. Procedurally, he insists that petitioner did not properly serve him with the papers commencing this proceeding as they only included the notice of petition and the first page of the verified petition when it attempted to effectuate service. On the merits, respondent insists that this Court should confirm the hearing officer’s award. He observes that the instant petition only pertains to charges 1, 2, 3, and 7, all of which the hearing officer dismissed. Respondent insists that petitioner simply disagrees with the hearing officer’s conclusions and that is not a basis to vacate her final determination and terminate respondent. He also claims that the penalty imposed was rational because the hearing officer found that respondent engaged in unprofessional behavior, but did not substantiate the allegations of violent conduct. In opposition to the cross-motion to dismiss, petitioner claims that respondent had actual notice of all of the papers filed here and that respondent’s counsel sought multiple adjournments of the return date for the instant petition. Petitioner argues that the seriousness of the issues in this case should compel the Court to deem service complete, or allow more time to serve, in the interest of justice. It also argues that respondent “regurgitates the hearing officer’s decision without showing why the award should not be vacated” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27). In reply, respondent insists that petitioner did not establish that it properly served him and that the award should be confirmed in its entirety. Service As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that service was not sufficient. Respondent submitted an affidavit in which he describes that he received only the first page of both the notice of petition and the verified petition and was never served with a complete copy of the papers (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18,
