Swinton v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swinton v. Safir

255 A.D.2d 193, 679 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12449

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 193 (Swinton v. Safir) 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

Swinton v. Safir, 255 A.D.2d 193, 679 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered January 24, 1997, which dismissed the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, [194]*194seeking to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 23, 1996, terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary police officer without a hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to present evidence demonstrating that his termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or that it was accomplished in bad faith or in violation of statutory or decisional law, petitioner was not, as a probationary police officer, entitled to a hearing to test the merits of his termination (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760; Matter of Simpson v Abate, 213 AD2d 190). Moreover, the record reveals that there was a rational basis for petitioner’s termination (Matter of Simpson v Abate, supra). Petitioner has also failed to establish his entitlement to a name-clearing hearing (see, Bishop v Wood, 426 US 341; Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered January 24, 1997, which dismissed the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, [194]*194seeking to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 23, 1996, terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary police officer without a hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since petitioner failed to present evidence demonstrating that his termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or that it was accomplished in bad faith or in violation of statutory or decisional law, petitioner was not, as a probationary police officer, entitled to a hearing to test the merits of his termination (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760; Matter of Simpson v Abate, 213 AD2d 190). Moreover, the record reveals that there was a rational basis for petitioner’s termination (Matter of Simpson v Abate, supra). Petitioner has also failed to establish his entitlement to a name-clearing hearing (see, Bishop v Wood, 426 US 341; Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 193, 679 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swinton-v-safir-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack