Matter of Gray v. Dir., Bronx Developmental Servs.

465 N.E.2d 356, 62 N.Y.2d 729, 476 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4329
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 8, 1984·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There is no basis, on this record, for concluding that petitioner’s probationary appointment was terminated for patient abuse, rather than for the stated reason of unsatisfactory performance. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to a name-clearing hearing, inasmuch as the reason for dismissal was not of a stigmatizing nature (Matter of Petix v Connelie, 47 NY2d 457). Whether respondent had a good-faith basis for terminating petitioner is an issue beyond our powers of review, given the findings below (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Matter of Gray v. Dir., Bronx Developmental Servs., 465 N.E.2d 356, 62 N.Y.2d 729, 476 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4329 (N.Y. 1984).

465 N.E.2d 356 (Matter of Gray v. Dir., Bronx Developmental Servs.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wright v. Guarinello
165 Misc. 2d 720 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
Roens v. New York City Transit Authority
202 A.D.2d 274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Lyles v. Ravitch
101 A.D.2d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)