Dillard v. Alvarado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dillard v. Alvarado

118 A.D.2d 644, 500 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54502

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to her position as a teacher, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated August 8, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a probationary employee may be [645]*645discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons (see, Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761). The proper standard for judicial review of the respondent’s termination of the petitioner’s services as a probationary teacher, is whether his action was arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 NY2d 835, 836). A review of the record does not indicate that the respondent’s termination of the petitioner’s services was such an arbitrary and capricious act.

Accordingly, we affirm. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, 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, inter alia, to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to her position as a teacher, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated August 8, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a probationary employee may be [645]*645discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons (see, Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761). The proper standard for judicial review of the respondent’s termination of the petitioner’s services as a probationary teacher, is whether his action was arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 NY2d 835, 836). A review of the record does not indicate that the respondent’s termination of the petitioner’s services was such an arbitrary and capricious act.

Accordingly, we affirm. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Dillard v. Alvarado, 118 A.D.2d 644, 500 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

118 A.D.2d 644 (Dillard v. Alvarado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related