From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Holmes v. Sielaff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1992
182 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 23, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


Petitioner's claim that her termination was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith is not supported by the record. As a general principle, a probationary employee is not entitled to a hearing and may be dismissed without any statement of reason (Matter of Ramos v Department of Mental Hygiene, 34 A.D.2d 925). Termination of a probationary employee is not in bad faith even where, as here, all criminal charges against her are subsequently dropped (Rizzo v Ward, Sup Ct, N Y County, Mar. 18, 1985, index No. 24468/84, affd 116 A.D.2d 1046). Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of showing that respondent acted in bad faith (see, Matter of Rainey v McGuire, 111 A.D.2d 616). Nor, on this record, was she entitled to a name clearing hearing.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Holmes v. Sielaff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1992
182 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Holmes v. Sielaff

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHELLE J. HOLMES, Appellant, v. ALLYN SIELAFF, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 23, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, however, a probationary employee may be terminated following an arrest…

In re Wharton v. N.Y.C. D.O.C.

This report further stated that "Officer Wharton acted in a manner that is below the expected comportment of…