Miller v. Siraguse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Siraguse

134 A.D.2d 910, 522 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51110

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 910 (Miller v. Siraguse) 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

Miller v. Siraguse, 134 A.D.2d 910, 522 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in ordering a due process hearing and directing respondent to justify the termination of petitioner, a probationary employee. Evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that performance was unsatisfactory establishes that the discharge was made in good faith. Therefore, no hearing was required (see, Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761). Moreover, since [911]*911petitioner did not establish that respondent disseminated a false impression about the reason for his termination, there is no need for a name-clearing hearing (see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874, 875-876). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — art 78.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in ordering a due process hearing and directing respondent to justify the termination of petitioner, a probationary employee. Evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that performance was unsatisfactory establishes that the discharge was made in good faith. Therefore, no hearing was required (see, Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761). Moreover, since [911]*911petitioner did not establish that respondent disseminated a false impression about the reason for his termination, there is no need for a name-clearing hearing (see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874, 875-876). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — art 78.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 910, 522 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-siraguse-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack