Misir v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Misir v. New York City Housing Authority

245 A.D.2d 88, 666 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12910

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 11, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 24, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a provisional employee of defendant Housing Authority, plaintiff, who was terminated for failing to report to work and thereafter failing to return, request leave or provide sufficient explanation for his absence, was not entitled to a hearing under Civil Service Law § 75 (Matter of Tyson v Hess, 66 NY2d 943). Nor was there merit to plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action under Labor Law § 201-d, implicitly denied in the order appealed from. Plaintiff’s allegations of political discrimination and of other bad faith by defendants in their treatment and termination of him were conclusory and unsubstantiated. The alleged offending statement upon which plaintiff bases his libel claim was qualifiedly privileged since it was made in the context of a review or evaluation of plaintiff’s performance by a superior, and no proof was submitted to raise any factual issue regard[89]*89ing defendants’ actual malice, personal spite, or culpable recklessness or negligence (see, Kasachkoff v City of New York, 107 AD2d 130). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 24, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a provisional employee of defendant Housing Authority, plaintiff, who was terminated for failing to report to work and thereafter failing to return, request leave or provide sufficient explanation for his absence, was not entitled to a hearing under Civil Service Law § 75 (Matter of Tyson v Hess, 66 NY2d 943). Nor was there merit to plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action under Labor Law § 201-d, implicitly denied in the order appealed from. Plaintiff’s allegations of political discrimination and of other bad faith by defendants in their treatment and termination of him were conclusory and unsubstantiated. The alleged offending statement upon which plaintiff bases his libel claim was qualifiedly privileged since it was made in the context of a review or evaluation of plaintiff’s performance by a superior, and no proof was submitted to raise any factual issue regard[89]*89ing defendants’ actual malice, personal spite, or culpable recklessness or negligence (see, Kasachkoff v City of New York, 107 AD2d 130). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Misir v. New York City Housing Authority, 245 A.D.2d 88, 666 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 88 (Misir v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related