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

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 465 N.E.2d 356 (Matter of Gray v. Dir., Bronx Developmental Servs.) 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 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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 N.E.2d 356, 62 N.Y.2d 729, 476 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gray-v-dir-bronx-developmental-servs-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack