Young Ju Park-Cunningham v. City of Watertown, 186 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1992). · Go Syfert
Young Ju Park-Cunningham v. City of Watertown, 186 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Young Ju Park-Cunningham
v.
City of Watertown
Appeal No. 2.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 7, 1992.
Published opinion
186 A.D.2d 1027
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

— 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.