Matter of Beneky v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Beneky v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor

366 N.E.2d 1349, 42 N.Y.2d 920, 397 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2252

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 366 N.E.2d 1349 (Matter of Beneky v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Beneky v. Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor, 366 N.E.2d 1349, 42 N.Y.2d 920, 397 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2252 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner, an investigator for the Waterfront Commission, concedes that he met with a reputed organized crime figure, who had been a target of numerous investigations by the commission, and that this meeting did not occur in the regular course of his employer’s business. As a nontenured employee, petitioner was not entitled to a full adversary hearing concerning the reasons for the termination of his employment unless there was proof that the discharge was for an improper reason or in bad faith. (See, e.g., Matter, of Anonymous v Codd, 40 NY2d 860; Matter of Bergstein v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 318, 322; Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564.) But, here, the proof failed to show improper motivation or bad faith and, thus, no hearing was required. In fact, the commission did more than it was required to do, under the Constitution and its own rules, by granting petitioner an opportunity to examine the reports which charged him with improper conduct and by permitting him to explain his actions. As to the claim that a hearing was necessary in view of the stigma attaching to the termination of his employment, it is sufficient to note that no hearing is necessary *922 where the employee fails to "affirmatively” challenge "the substantial truth of the material in question”. (Codd v Velger, 429 US 624, 627-628.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner, an investigator for the Waterfront Commission, concedes that he met with a reputed organized crime figure, who had been a target of numerous investigations by the commission, and that this meeting did not occur in the regular course of his employer’s business. As a nontenured employee, petitioner was not entitled to a full adversary hearing concerning the reasons for the termination of his employment unless there was proof that the discharge was for an improper reason or in bad faith. (See, e.g., Matter, of Anonymous v Codd, 40 NY2d 860; Matter of Bergstein v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 318, 322; Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564.) But, here, the proof failed to show improper motivation or bad faith and, thus, no hearing was required. In fact, the commission did more than it was required to do, under the Constitution and its own rules, by granting petitioner an opportunity to examine the reports which charged him with improper conduct and by permitting him to explain his actions. As to the claim that a hearing was necessary in view of the stigma attaching to the termination of his employment, it is sufficient to note that no hearing is necessary *922 where the employee fails to "affirmatively” challenge "the substantial truth of the material in question”. (Codd v Velger, 429 US 624, 627-628.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 N.E.2d 1349, 42 N.Y.2d 920, 397 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-beneky-v-waterfront-commn-of-new-york-harbor-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack