Wilson v. New York City Transit Authority

254 A.D.2d 426, 679 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11113
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 19, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 426 (Wilson v. New York City Transit Authority) 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
Wilson v. New York City Transit Authority, 254 A.D.2d 426, 679 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority, dated June 24, 1997, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a probationary Structure Maintainer “B”, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated March 5, 1998, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the parties’ evidentiary submissions establish that he was initially appointed to the title Structure Maintainer “B” on June 30, 1996, and that [427]*427he was therefore still serving his probationary term at the time of his discharge from that position. Since the petitioner was a probationary employee, he could be terminated “without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a showing that the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, in bad faith, or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Matter of Bass v New York City Tr. Auth., 236 AD2d 536, citing Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760; see also, Matter of Phillips v Kiepper, 236 AD2d 542). Here, the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the decision to terminate his employment as a Structure Maintainer “B” because of his poor attendance record was made in bad faith, or was otherwise improper. Accordingly, the petition was properly denied (see, Matter of Bass v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Matter of Phillips v Kiepper, supra). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Stretz v. Bloom
286 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Bourne v. New York City Transit Authorithy
274 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Gulemi v. Bradley
267 A.D.2d 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Green v. Board of Education
262 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Williams v. Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health
259 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 426, 679 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1998.