Leskow v. Office of Court Administration

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leskow v. Office of Court Administration

248 A.D.2d 1004, 670 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1004 (Leskow v. Office of Court Administration) 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

Leskow v. Office of Court Administration, 248 A.D.2d 1004, 670 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking judicial review of his termination as an at-will employee of respondent. Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. There is a “very strong presumption” that respondent acted appropriately (Matter of Diaz v Goldman, 225 AD2d 344, 346),. and petitioner bore the burden of pleading and proving that respondent acted in bad faith (see, Matter of Thomas v Abate, 213 AD2d 251; Matter of D'Arpe v Brown, 197 AD2d 455; Matter of Soto v Koehler, 171 AD2d 567, 568, Iv denied 78 NY2d 855). Petitioner’s conclusory allegations of bad faith based upon speculation are insufficient as a matter of law to meet that burden and to require a hearing on the issue of bad faith (see, [1005]*1005Matter of Thomas v Abate, supra; Matter of Cortijo v Ward, 158 AD2d 345; Matter of Whelan v Rozzi, 155 AD2d 603). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J. — CPLR art 78.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking judicial review of his termination as an at-will employee of respondent. Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. There is a “very strong presumption” that respondent acted appropriately (Matter of Diaz v Goldman, 225 AD2d 344, 346),. and petitioner bore the burden of pleading and proving that respondent acted in bad faith (see, Matter of Thomas v Abate, 213 AD2d 251; Matter of D'Arpe v Brown, 197 AD2d 455; Matter of Soto v Koehler, 171 AD2d 567, 568, Iv denied 78 NY2d 855). Petitioner’s conclusory allegations of bad faith based upon speculation are insufficient as a matter of law to meet that burden and to require a hearing on the issue of bad faith (see, [1005]*1005Matter of Thomas v Abate, supra; Matter of Cortijo v Ward, 158 AD2d 345; Matter of Whelan v Rozzi, 155 AD2d 603). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J. — CPLR art 78.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1004, 670 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leskow-v-office-of-court-administration-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack