Lambert v. Kelly
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 59,78 A.D.3d 554 |
| Parties | In re Yolanda LAMBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond W. KELLY, as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, et al., Respondents-Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 23 November 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Worth, Longworth & London, LLP, New York (Howard B. Sterinbach of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Alan G. Krams of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (AliceSchlesinger, J.), entered November 27, 2009, dismissing this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is well settled that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing or statement of reasons, for any reason or no reason at all, in the absence of a showing that the dismissal was inbad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of law ( Matter of Witherspoon v. Horn, 19 A.D.3d 250, 800 N.Y.S.2d 377 [2005] ). Moreover, the burden of proving bad faith is on the employee, and its mere assertion, without supporting evidence, does not satisfy that requirement.
Petitioner did not produce competent proof that she was terminated for an impermissible reason. In fact, the record discloses a rational basis for the challenged determination. There is evidence that petitioner had committed numerous violations of NYPD regulations, and that the discharge was made in good faith. In particular, her illegally parked personal vehicle displayed an expired police parking permit that did not belong to her. She then used her position as an officer to try to get special treatment from the Marshal in retrieving the vehicle ( see Batista v. Kelly, 16 A.D.3d 182, 791 N.Y.S.2d 45 [2005] ).
There is no evidence that petitioner was dismissed in order to frustrate her receipt of vested interest retirement benefits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Dep't of Educ. of N.Y.
...the termination was made in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of the law. See Lambert v. Kelly, 78 A.D.3d 554, 555, 911 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Department, 2010)]. The Respondents also seek to have the causes of action claiming that the Respondents violated t......
-
Hawkins v. Farin~a
...that petitioner was terminated on grounds of misconduct and violations of applicable regulations (see e.g. Matter of Lambert v. Kelly, 78 A.D.3d 554, 911 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept. 2010] ). His arguments on appeal amount to an assertion that DOE erred in reaching these determinations, but such ......
- Cmty. Counseling & Mediation Serv. v. Chera