From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Crosson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 12, 1992
183 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

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.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Crosson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 12, 1992
183 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Crosson

Case Details

Full title:JAMES REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. MATTHEW T. CROSSON, as Chief Administrator…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 12, 1992

Citations

183 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Unified Court v. New York State

UCS seeks to stay the arbitration on the grounds that under applicable law and court rules it had every right…

Parenti v. Pfau

and capricious, or irrational ( see Matter of Saur v. Director of Creedmoor Psychiatric Ctr., 41 N.Y.2d…