Taylor v. Port Authority of States of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Port Authority of States of New York & New Jersey

228 A.D.2d 197, 643 N.Y.2d 103, 643 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6363

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 197 (Taylor v. Port Authority of States of New York & New Jersey) 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

Taylor v. Port Authority of States of New York & New Jersey, 228 A.D.2d 197, 643 N.Y.2d 103, 643 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

As a probationary employee, petitioner could be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the dismissal was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760), or made in bad faith (Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). Petitioner was dismissed because of a report from an upstate police department of his having been stopped on two successive days for drunk driving while he was on vacation. The second of these resulted in an arrest after he was found to have a blood alcohol level of .15%. His claim that respondent had treated another probationary employee accused of similar conduct more leniently was properly rejected, the circumstances of that case being entirely distinguishable. There was no showing of either falsity (Matter of Miciotta v McMickens, 118 AD2d 489), or disparate treatment. Nor is petitioner entitled to a name-clearing hearing where the reasons for petitioner’s discharge were not disclosed by respondent. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

As a probationary employee, petitioner could be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the dismissal was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760), or made in bad faith (Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). Petitioner was dismissed because of a report from an upstate police department of his having been stopped on two successive days for drunk driving while he was on vacation. The second of these resulted in an arrest after he was found to have a blood alcohol level of .15%. His claim that respondent had treated another probationary employee accused of similar conduct more leniently was properly rejected, the circumstances of that case being entirely distinguishable. There was no showing of either falsity (Matter of Miciotta v McMickens, 118 AD2d 489), or disparate treatment. Nor is petitioner entitled to a name-clearing hearing where the reasons for petitioner’s discharge were not disclosed by respondent. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 197, 643 N.Y.2d 103, 643 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-port-authority-of-states-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack