Ortiz v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Ward

155 A.D.2d 245

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 245 (Ortiz v. Ward) 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

Ortiz v. Ward, 155 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 14, 1988, which dismissed this petition challenging petitioner’s termination of employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, a probationary employee, could be discharged without a hearing so long as the termination was not made in bad faith. The evidence in this record supports the conclusion that petitioner was discharged for good reason and, accordingly, no hearing was necessary before terminating petitioner’s employment (Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). Nor was petitioner entitled to a so-called "name-clearing hearing”, since petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the public employer publicly disclosed the stigmatizing reasons for petitioner’s discharge (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 14, 1988, which dismissed this petition challenging petitioner’s termination of employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, a probationary employee, could be discharged without a hearing so long as the termination was not made in bad faith. The evidence in this record supports the conclusion that petitioner was discharged for good reason and, accordingly, no hearing was necessary before terminating petitioner’s employment (Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). Nor was petitioner entitled to a so-called "name-clearing hearing”, since petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the public employer publicly disclosed the stigmatizing reasons for petitioner’s discharge (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-ward-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack