Blum v. Quinones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blum v. Quinones

139 A.D.2d 509, 526 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3749

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 509 (Blum v. Quinones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blum v. Quinones, 139 A.D.2d 509, 526 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a probationary high school teacher, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 17, 1986, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was a probationary high school teacher of biology and general science who was discharged for being late 117 times during the 1984-1985 school year and for unsatisfactory teaching performance documented by many reports. The petitioner claims he was not afforded a full hearing to review the Chancellor’s decision to terminate his probationary status. However, it is well settled that employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without specific reasons being stated and, in the absence of bad faith, the determination must be upheld (Matter of Ostoyich v State of New York, 99 AD2d 839, lv denied 62 NY2d 605). There was no showing of bad faith.

The petitioner also seeks a declaration of his rights under his teaching license. This license has not been revoked by the Chancellor, and the granting of such relief is clearly unwar[510]*510ranted. The petitioner further seeks a name-clearing hearing, claiming he has been stigmatized by the charge regarding his excessive tardiness. The petitioner has failed to submit any evidence of his being stigmatized and, therefore, such a hearing is unnecessary (see, Matter of Petix v Connelie, 47 NY2d 457; cf., Matter of Merhige v Copaigue School Dist., 76 AD2d 926). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a probationary high school teacher, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 17, 1986, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was a probationary high school teacher of biology and general science who was discharged for being late 117 times during the 1984-1985 school year and for unsatisfactory teaching performance documented by many reports. The petitioner claims he was not afforded a full hearing to review the Chancellor’s decision to terminate his probationary status. However, it is well settled that employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without specific reasons being stated and, in the absence of bad faith, the determination must be upheld (Matter of Ostoyich v State of New York, 99 AD2d 839, lv denied 62 NY2d 605). There was no showing of bad faith.

The petitioner also seeks a declaration of his rights under his teaching license. This license has not been revoked by the Chancellor, and the granting of such relief is clearly unwar[510]*510ranted. The petitioner further seeks a name-clearing hearing, claiming he has been stigmatized by the charge regarding his excessive tardiness. The petitioner has failed to submit any evidence of his being stigmatized and, therefore, such a hearing is unnecessary (see, Matter of Petix v Connelie, 47 NY2d 457; cf., Matter of Merhige v Copaigue School Dist., 76 AD2d 926). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 509, 526 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blum-v-quinones-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack