Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury

6 Citing cases

  1. Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n v. N.Y. State Office of Children & Family Servs.

    174 A.D.3d 1206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    As to whether Sansky's discharge from employment was retaliatory or made in bad faith, petitioners bore "the burden of proof on this issue and [had to] present competent proof that the dismissal was motivated by an improper purpose or bad faith" ( Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 A.D.2d 877, 877–878, 713 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2000] ). Generally, a hearing is required when there is " ‘a question of fact as to whether the dismissal was due to causes unrelated to work performance and/or improperly motivated’ " ( Matter of Shabazz v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 63 A.D.3d 1253, 1254, 879 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2009], quoting Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury, 256 A.D.2d 784, 785, 681 N.Y.S.2d 406 [1998] ; seeMatter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 A.D.2d at 877, 713 N.Y.S.2d 571 ). However, conclusory, speculative or unsupported allegations are insufficient to warrant a hearing ( Matter of Solomon v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 170 A.D.3d at 1297, 96 N.Y.S.3d 371 ; Matter of Taylor v. State Univ. of N.Y., 13 A.D.3d 1149, 1149, 787 N.Y.S.2d 753 [2004] ).

  2. Higgins v. La Paglia

    281 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 18 times
    In Higgins, a hearing was directed regarding the termination of a probationary correction officer where an issue was raised as to good faith because of, among other things, conflicting evaluation reports and allegations by the petitioner that he, unlike other newly hired correction officers, was not afforded academy training (281 A.D.2d at 681, 722 N.Y.S.2d 592).

    This argument lacks merit since that provision of the handbook contravenes rule XIV (1) (c) of the Ulster County Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which defines a probationary term as at least 12 weeks but not more than 52 weeks. When a county civil service commission, possessing the requisite authority, promulgates a rule establishing the length of a probationary term of service, that rule has the effect of law (see, Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury, 256 A.D.2d 784, 785-786) and absent any claim on petitioner's behalf that the Ulster County Civil Service Commission delegated this authority, the provision of the handbook must yield to the rule promulgated by the Commission (see,Matter of Colao v. Village of Ellenville, 223 A.D.2d 792, 793, lv dismissed, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 1041). As a probationary employee, therefore, petitioner could be terminated without a hearing unless he proffered sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether his discharge was unrelated to work performance, motivated by a constitutionally impermissible purpose or made in bad faith (see, Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 A.D.2d 877, 877; Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury,supra, at 785; Matter of Van Dyke v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 144 A.D.2d 85, 87, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 607).

  3. Bombard v. State

    113 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Even if, as petitioner contends, this report was not timely delivered, a University official received a separate written list of reasons for the recommendation just over two weeks before the probationary period ended. As a substantive matter, however, we find that petitioner met his initial burden of proof to raise factual issues as to whether he was terminated in bad faith, and thus a hearing is necessary to determine whether his probationary position was properly terminated based upon his unsatisfactory work performance, or for other improper reasons ( see Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 A.D.2d 877, 877–878, 713 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2000]; Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury, 256 A.D.2d 784, 785, 681 N.Y.S.2d 406 [1998] ). In so holding, we fully recognize that the rights of a probationary employee are strictly limited ( see Matter of Swinton v. Safir, 93 N.Y.2d 758, 763, 697 N.Y.S.2d 869, 720 N.E.2d 89 [1999]; Matter of Shabazz v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 63 A.D.3d 1253, 1254, 879 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2009] ). Nevertheless, petitioner has alleged that Sabo and Lottie harbored ill will against him due to a “no confidence” petition that he had circulated among University police officers in 2010.

  4. Shabazz v. Dept. of Corr. Serv

    63 A.D.3d 1253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 11 times

    No hearing or even a statement of reasons is required absent proof that the discharge was constitutionally impermissible or in violation of law. Petitioner bears the burden of submitting proof "sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the dismissal was due to causes unrelated to work performance and/or improperly motivated" ( Matter of Gordon v Town of Queensbury, 256 AD2d 784, 785). Here, respondent amply demonstrated that petitioner was dismissed due to the belief, supported by the statements of several employees and his supervisor, that there had been a potential violation of the rules of employment, and that this posed a security and safety risk. Petitioner asserts that those individuals were mistaken or lying and states that the prior allegation regarding his conduct was satisfactorily resolved.

  5. Garrity v. University at Albany

    301 A.D.2d 1015 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting a claim under the New York whistleblower statute where the employee did not give supervisors reasonable time to investigate and correct problems

    Upon our review of the record, however, we find that petitioner offered sufficient evidence to require a hearing. As a probationary employee, petitioner may challenge his termination only by raising a question of fact as to whether his discharge was unrelated to his work performance, motivated by a constitutionally impermissible purpose or made in bad faith (see Matter of Swinton v. Safir, 93 N.Y.2d 758, 763; Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 A.D.2d 877, 877; Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury, 256 A.D.2d 784, 785). Although, as Supreme Court noted, the record here contains Lawrence's allegations that petitioner failed to follow directions by ordering unauthorized pharmaceuticals and usurped Lawrence's authority by offering employment to an applicant for a pharmacist position, there is also evidence that petitioner obtained Lawrence's assent to ordering some items, other items complied with recent revisions to the pharmacy's formulary guideline, and petitioner did not actually offer employment to the applicant. In addition to denying respondents' stated reasons for termination, petitioner offers substantially different accounts of the incidents cited by Lawrence to establish his insubordination.

  6. Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation

    275 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 15 times

    We affirm. Absent proof that his discharge was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, in violation of applicable law or made in bad faith, petitioner, a probationary employee, was subject to dismissal from his employment without explanation or a hearing (see, Matter of Swinton v. Safir, 93 N.Y.2d 758, 763; Matter of York v. McGuire, 63 N.Y.2d 760, 761). Although a hearing may be required where there exists a substantial question as to whether the discharge was due to reasons unrelated to work performance, petitioner bears the burden of proof on this issue and must present competent proof that the dismissal was motivated by an improper purpose or bad faith (see, Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury, 256 A.D.2d 784, 785; Matter of Beacham v. Brown, 215 A.D.2d 334,lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 801). We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant a hearing in this regard.