Williams v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Ward

155 A.D.2d 361

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 361 (Williams 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

Williams v. Ward, 155 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jawn A. Sandifer, J.), entered May 5, 1989, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a nontenured, probationary employee in the Police Cadet Corps Program, petitioner was subject to discharge without cause and without a statement of reasons (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory or decisional law, or constitutionally [362]*362impermissible purpose, in such discharge. The student loan agreement did not establish a contractual term of employment. Petitioner is not entitled to a “name-clearing hearing” because she has failed to challenge the accuracy of the false impression allegedly created (Codd v Velger, 429 US 624), and has failed to establish a public disclosure of the information (see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jawn A. Sandifer, J.), entered May 5, 1989, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a nontenured, probationary employee in the Police Cadet Corps Program, petitioner was subject to discharge without cause and without a statement of reasons (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory or decisional law, or constitutionally [362]*362impermissible purpose, in such discharge. The student loan agreement did not establish a contractual term of employment. Petitioner is not entitled to a “name-clearing hearing” because she has failed to challenge the accuracy of the false impression allegedly created (Codd v Velger, 429 US 624), and has failed to establish a public disclosure of the information (see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-ward-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack