Bynoe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bynoe v. City of New York

281 A.D.2d 340, 722 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 340 (Bynoe v. City of New York) 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

Bynoe v. City of New York, 281 A.D.2d 340, 722 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s provisional employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s evidence that over the course of his year-and-a half provisional employment he received only one performance evaluation six months after his appointment, which was favorable, does not satisfy his burden of showing that his termination was in bad faith or arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Romero v Joseph, 169 AD2d 544). There is evidence of petitioner’s substandard performance as well (see, Matter of Atkinson v Koch, 161 AD2d 152, 153-154), and no evidence that respondent was required to give him periodic performance evaluations. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s provisional employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s evidence that over the course of his year-and-a half provisional employment he received only one performance evaluation six months after his appointment, which was favorable, does not satisfy his burden of showing that his termination was in bad faith or arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Romero v Joseph, 169 AD2d 544). There is evidence of petitioner’s substandard performance as well (see, Matter of Atkinson v Koch, 161 AD2d 152, 153-154), and no evidence that respondent was required to give him periodic performance evaluations. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 340, 722 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bynoe-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack