Summary
In Lane, the probationary employee was an initial appointee to the position of correction officer, who was found to have violated three departmental rules, properly leading to his termination, and eliminating the necessity of the court inquiring as to the employer's alleged bad faith.
Summary of this case from Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cnty. of OrangeOpinion
2012-02-14
In the Matter of Martin LANE, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Scott Shorr of counsel; Azziza J. Bensaid on the brief), for respondents.
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Scott Shorr of counsel; Azziza J. Bensaid on the brief), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RANDALL T. ENG, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Correction dated May 18, 2010, which terminated the petitioner's probationary employment as a corrections officer, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), dated November 18, 2010, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the City of New York, Dora B. Schriro, and the New York City Department of Correction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner was hired as a probationary corrections officer in August 2008. Between November 2008 and September 2009, he had submitted four Use of Force reports and accepted a Command Discipline in connection with three violations of departmental rules stemming from his failure to report for an overtime shift. On May 18, 2010, his probationary employment was terminated.
The employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law ( see Matter of Swinton v. Safir, 93 N.Y.2d 758, 762–763, 697 N.Y.S.2d 869, 720 N.E.2d 89; Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649, 650, 505 N.Y.S.2d 64, 496 N.E.2d 223; Matter of York v. McGuire, 63 N.Y.2d 760, 761, 480 N.Y.S.2d 320, 469 N.E.2d 838; Matter of Johnson v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 73 A.D.3d 927, 900 N.Y.S.2d 737; Walsh v. New York State Thruway Auth., 24 A.D.3d 755, 808 N.Y.S.2d 710; Matter of Wilson v. Bratton, 266 A.D.2d 140, 141, 699 N.Y.S.2d 29). Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for the other improper or impermissible reasons set forth above ( see Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d at 650, 505 N.Y.S.2d 64, 496 N.E.2d 223; Walsh v. New York State Thruway Auth., 24 A.D.3d at 757, 808 N.Y.S.2d 710).
Here, the petitioner's allegations failed to show that he was terminated in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or for illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law ( see Matter of Johnson v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 73 A.D.3d 927, 900 N.Y.S.2d 737; Matter of Ward v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 64 A.D.3d 719, 883 N.Y.S.2d 282; Walsh v. New York State Thruway Auth., 24 A.D.3d 755, 808 N.Y.S.2d 710). His claims that the Command Discipline issued for his violation of departmental rules and regulations was erroneous, and that his use of force in dealing with inmates was justified, were insufficient to establish that his employment was terminated in bad faith ( see Walsh v. New York State Thruway Auth., 24 A.D.3d at 756, 808 N.Y.S.2d 710).
The petitioner's speculative allegations of bad faith with respect to the termination of his probationary employment are insufficient to warrant a hearing ( see Walsh v. New York State Thruway Auth., 24 A.D.3d 755, 808 N.Y.S.2d 710; Matter of Bourne v. New York City Tr. Auth., 274 A.D.2d 581, 712 N.Y.S.2d 396).