From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francois v. Walcott

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 4, 2016
136 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

02-04-2016

In re Coquita FRANCOIS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Dennis M. WALCOTT, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Wolin & Wolin, Jericho (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.


Wolin & Wolin, Jericho (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered October 6, 2014, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondents' determination terminating petitioner's employment as a probationary guidance counselor, to direct respondents to vacate petitioner's unsatisfactory rating for the 2012–2013 school year, and to reinstate her employment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is well established that a "probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [the] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law (Matter of Brown v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 368, 370, 721 N.Y.S.2d 497 [1st Dept.2001] ; see Matter of Kolmel v. City of New York, 88 A.D.3d 527, 528, 930 N.Y.S.2d 573 [1st Dept.2011] ). Here, petitioner failed to demonstrate an improper basis for the termination of her probationary employment. Rather, the documentary evidence provided a rational basis for the determination that petitioner's job performance was unsatisfactory (see Matter of Murnane v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 A.D.3d 576, 919 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept.2011] ). Although petitioner disputed the principal's account of events and the principal's opinion of petitioner's job performance, petitioner failed to show that certain irregularities in the review process demonstrated bad faith or deprived her of a substantial right (see Matter of Richards v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 A.D.3d 605, 985 N.Y.S.2d 574 [1st Dept.2014] ).

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SWEENY, ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Francois v. Walcott

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 4, 2016
136 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Francois v. Walcott

Case Details

Full title:In re Coquita FRANCOIS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Dennis M. WALCOTT, etc.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 4, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 760
23 N.Y.S.3d 885

Citing Cases

Rattray v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

A probationary employee, "may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that the…