Holmes v. Sielaff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holmes v. Sielaff

182 A.D.2d 557, 585 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267

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

DecidedApril 23, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 557 (Holmes v. Sielaff) 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

Holmes v. Sielaff, 182 A.D.2d 557, 585 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 31, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul respondent’s determination termi[558]*558nating petitioner’s employment as a probationary correction officer and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner’s claim that her termination was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith is not supported by the record. As a general principle, a probationary employee is not entitled to a hearing and may be dismissed without any statement of reason (Matter of Ramos v Department of Mental Hygiene, 34 AD2d 925). Termination of a probationary employee is not in bad faith even where, as here, all criminal charges against her are subsequently dropped (Rizzo v Ward, Sup Ct, NY County, Mar. 18, 1985, index No. 24468/84, affd 116 AD2d 1046). Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of showing that respondent acted in bad faith (see, Matter of Rainey v McGuire, 111 AD2d 616). Nor, on this record, was she entitled to a name clearing hearing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 31, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul respondent’s determination termi[558]*558nating petitioner’s employment as a probationary correction officer and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner’s claim that her termination was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith is not supported by the record. As a general principle, a probationary employee is not entitled to a hearing and may be dismissed without any statement of reason (Matter of Ramos v Department of Mental Hygiene, 34 AD2d 925). Termination of a probationary employee is not in bad faith even where, as here, all criminal charges against her are subsequently dropped (Rizzo v Ward, Sup Ct, NY County, Mar. 18, 1985, index No. 24468/84, affd 116 AD2d 1046). Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of showing that respondent acted in bad faith (see, Matter of Rainey v McGuire, 111 AD2d 616). Nor, on this record, was she entitled to a name clearing hearing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 557, 585 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-sielaff-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack