Matter of Francois v. Walcott

136 A.D.3d 434, 23 N.Y.S.3d 885
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 2016
Docket123 101404/13
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 434 (Matter of Francois v. Walcott) 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
Matter of Francois v. Walcott, 136 A.D.3d 434, 23 N.Y.S.3d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered October 6, 2014, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary guidance counselor, to direct respondents to vacate petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating for the 2012-2013 school year, and to reinstate her employment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is well established that a “probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [the] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law” (Matter of Brown v City of New York, 280 AD2d 368, 370 [1st Dept 2001]; see Matter of Kolmel v City of New York, 88 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2011]). Here, petitioner failed to demonstrate an improper basis for the termination of her probationary employment. Rather, the documentary evidence provided a rational basis for the determination that petitioner’s job performance was unsatisfactory (see Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2011]). Although petitioner disputed the principal’s account of events and the principal’s opinion of petitioner’s job performance, petitioner failed to show that certain irregularities in the review process demonstrated bad faith or deprived her of a substantial right (see Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur— Tom, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Bonacarti v. Mayor's Off. of Criminal Justice
2023 NY Slip Op 01227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Damesek v. City of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 3301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Leka v. New York City Law Dept.
2018 NY Slip Op 2549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 434, 23 N.Y.S.3d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-francois-v-walcott-nyappdiv-2016.