Opinion
9092 Index 155642/17
04-25-2019
In re Carl HAWKINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Carmen FARIN~A, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondents.
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondents.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Kapnick, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2018, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE) to terminate petitioner's probationary employment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the dismissal was not unlawful or in bad faith (see e.g. Matter of Duncan v. Kelly, 9 N.Y.3d 1024, 853 N.Y.S.2d 260, 882 N.E.2d 872 [2008] ). Here, petitioner alleges no facts to show that his termination was for an illegal or an improper reason, and, absent such allegations, his characterization of his termination as having been in bad faith is purely speculative ( Matter of Turner v. Horn, 69 A.D.3d 522, 893 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Rather, the record shows that petitioner was terminated on grounds of misconduct and violations of applicable regulations (see e.g. Matter of Lambert v. Kelly, 78 A.D.3d 554, 911 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept. 2010] ). His arguments on appeal amount to an assertion that DOE erred in reaching these determinations, but such assertion does not raise issues of fact as to bad faith (see Matter of Green v. New York City Hous. Auth., 25 AD3d 352, 806 N.Y.S.2d 581 [1st Dept. 2006] ), nor does the record support such a conclusion.
Furthermore, petitioner complains that DOE's Office of Special Investigations failed to interview one particular student and to turn over investigatory materials. These alleged irregularities in the process, however, without more, do not constitute bad faith or a deprivation of a substantial right (see Matter of Leka v. New York City Law Dept., 160 A.D.3d 497, 76 N.Y.S.3d 7 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.