§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Raymond Castro, Respondent,v.Dora Schriro,, et al. Appellants.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Pell v. Board of Education

    34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 5,554 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

  2. Matter of Scherbyn v. Boces

    77 N.Y.2d 753 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 530 times
    Finding that Article 78 review of a quasi-judicial hearing is a certiorari proceeding, not a mandamus to review proceeding, and therefore "substantial evidence" rather than "arbitrary and capricious" is the standard of review

  3. Matter of Swinton v. Safir

    93 N.Y.2d 758 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that a probationary employee could be terminated at will but only absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason

  4. Che Lin Tsao v. Kelly

    28 A.D.3d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 74 times
    Hearing necessary "where an issue of a substantial nature is raised regarding the probationary employee's dismissal

  5. Duncan v. Kelly

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 181 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 39 times

    No. 47 SSM 36. Decided January 15, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered August 9, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had dismissed a petition to annul respondents' determination terminating petitioner's employment as a probationary police officer

  6. Castro v. Schriro

    140 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 18 times

    06-28-2016 In re Raymond CASTRO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Dr. Dora SCHRIRO, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents. Koehler & Isaacs LLP, New York (Liam L. Castro of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents. Koehler & Isaacs LLP, New York (Liam L. Castro of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents. ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ

  7. Higgins v. La Paglia

    281 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 16 times
    In Higgins, a hearing was directed regarding the termination of a probationary correction officer where an issue was raised as to good faith because of, among other things, conflicting evaluation reports and allegations by the petitioner that he, unlike other newly hired correction officers, was not afforded academy training (281 A.D.2d at 681, 722 N.Y.S.2d 592).

  8. Duncan v. Kelly

    43 A.D.3d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    No. 49. August 9, 2007. Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 26, 2005, dismissing this proceeding seeking to annul respondents' determination that terminated petitioner's employment, affirmed, without costs. Worth, Longworth London, LLP, New York (Howard B. Sterinbach of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondents. Before: Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny

  9. Quick v. Horn

    21 Misc. 3d 1116 (N.Y. Misc. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    In Quick, the court (Joan Madden, J.), annulled the determination of respondents the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) and the City of New York that terminated petitioner's employment as a probationary corrections officer, and directed that she be reinstated with back-pay and benefits.

  10. Duchinsky v. Scoppetta

    18 Misc. 3d 1141 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    March 4, 2008. Battaglia, J. Civil Service — Termination of Employment — Probationary Employee.

  11. Section 7803 - Questions raised

    N.Y. CPLR 7803   Cited 4,933 times
    Listing the “only questions” that may be raised in an Article 78 proceeding