Young Ju Park-Cunningham v. City of Watertown

186 A.D.2d 1027
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1992·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenges her dismissal as a probationary employee, petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that respondents acted in bad [1028] faith (see, Tomlinson v Ward, 110 AD2d 537, 538, affd 66 NY2d 771). It is axiomatic that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of the reasons for doing so provided the dismissal was not for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761). Supreme Court properly determined that the proof at trial was insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the dismissal of petitioner was discriminatory (see, Mayer v Manton Cork Corp., 126 AD2d 526). The record establishes that petitioner’s job performance was unsatisfactory and that her dismissal was made in good faith (see, Matter of King v Sapier, 47 AD2d 114, 116, affd 38 NY2d 960). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Article 78.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

Young Ju Park-Cunningham v. City of Watertown, 186 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

186 A.D.2d 1027 (Young Ju Park-Cunningham v. City of Watertown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Munich v. City of Lackawanna Department of Public Safety
262 A.D.2d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Meyers v. City of New York
208 A.D.2d 258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)