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

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 644 (Dillard v. Alvarado) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 644, 500 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillard-v-alvarado-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack