We conclude, moreover, that the termination was not carried out in an illegal manner. Instead, the record establishes that petitioner's probationary employment was overseen by respondents in full conformity with the applicable regulation ( see 4 NYCRR 4.5 [b] [5] [iii]; Matter of Berry v. Perales, 195 AD2d 926, 930, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 802; see also Tuller v. Central School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Conklin, Binghamton, Kirkwood Vestal, 40 NY2d 487, 494-495, rearg denied 40 NY2d 918; Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 AD2d 877, 878; Matter of Tyner v. Harvey, 191 AD2d 924, 925-926; see generally Matter of Ward v. Roswell Park Mem. Inst., 161 AD2d 1148).