§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

18 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. Matter of Johnson v. Katz

    68 N.Y.2d 649 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 173 times

    Decided June 10, 1986 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Lawrence E. Kahn, J. William F. Sheehan for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (William J. Kogan, Robert Hermann and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Judicial review of the determination to discharge this probationary employee is limited to an inquiry as to whether the termination was made

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Walsh v. New York State Thruway Authority

    24 A.D.3d 755 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 37 times

    2004-11177. December 27, 2005. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and to reinstate the plaintiff to his former position as an employee of the defendant, New York State Thruway Authority, with back pay, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated October 1, 2004, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied his cross motion

  8. Lane v. City of New York

    92 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 27 times
    In Lane, the probationary employee was an initial appointee to the position of correction officer, who was found to have violated three departmental rules, properly leading to his termination, and eliminating the necessity of the court inquiring as to the employer's alleged bad faith.

  9. Matter of Thomas v. Abate

    213 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 37 times

    March 16, 1995 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.). The IAS Court properly determined that the termination of the petitioner was neither arbitrary, capricious nor made in bad faith and that the petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to her dismissal, where, as here, the record reveals that the petitioner was absent on sick leave on 376 work days during her 26 month probationary period and that Department medical personnel found that the petitioner

  10. In re Turner

    69 A.D.3d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 16 times

    No. 2052. January 26, 2010. Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered January 15, 2009, which denied the petition for a judgment annulling respondents' determination to terminate petitioner's probationary employment and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Robert Ligansky, New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents

  11. Section 600.10 - Format and content of records, appendices and briefs

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.10   Cited 11 times

    (a) Form and size. (1) Generally; paper and page size. Records, appendices and briefs shall be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black on white copy and shall be on a good grade of white, opaque, unglazed recycled paper that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (e) of this section. Paper shall measure vertically 11 inches on the bound edge and horizontally 81/2 inches. The clerk may refuse to accept for filing a paper which is not legible or otherwise does not comply