Opinion
May 12, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.).
As petitioner's probationary status was pursuant to a disciplinary penalty and not part of the evaluation process governing newly hired, promoted or transferred employees, the provisions of section 25.22 of the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR) do not apply. Had the parties intended section 25.22 procedures to apply, they could have incorporated such into the disciplinary settlement agreed to by petitioner with the advice of his union delegate. Nor do the Civil Service Law and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder apply to employees of the Unified Court System (Judiciary Law § 211 [d]; 22 N.Y.CRR part 25; see, Matter of Conigland v. Rosenblatt, 171 A.D.2d 864).
Absent statute or rule to the contrary, a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons. The courts will intervene only where it is shown that the discharge was made in bad faith or was due to constitutionally impermissible reasons, with the burden of proof on the employee (Matter of Whelan v. Rozzi, 155 A.D.2d 603). Petitioner here has failed to meet that burden (see, Matter of Dolcemashio v. City of New York, 180 A.D.2d 573). Nor has petitioner shown that respondent publicly disseminated a false and defamatory impression concerning his discharge such as would warrant a name-clearing hearing (Matter of Lentlie v. Egan, 61 N.Y.2d 874).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.