| Matter of Bradford v New York City Dept. of Correction |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08530 [56 AD3d 290] |
| November 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Stephanie Bradford, Respondent, v NewYork City Department of Correction, Appellant. |
—[*1] Communications Workers of America, New York (Christina Norum of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 4, 2007,granting the petition, vacating respondent's determination to terminate petitioner's employment,and remanding the matter to respondent for a hearing, unanimously reversed, on the law, withoutcosts, the petition denied, the determination reinstated and confirmed, and the proceedingdismissed.
It is uncontested that petitioner's limited probationary agreement encompassed her conduct inrelation to "rules, regulations, directives, operation orders, policies and institutional ordersconcerning: AWOLs, time and leave, sign in/out procedures, being on post and efficientperformance." Furthermore, petitioner was terminated, inter alia, for her repeated failure tosubmit statistical reports required by the rules and regulations of respondent Department ofCorrection, an allegation that petitioner conceded. Matter of Tankard v Abate (159 Misc2d 339 [1993], mod on other grounds 213 AD2d 320 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d702 [1995]), relied on by the court below, does not require a hearing in such circumstances.
Petitioner failed to put forth evidence that her termination pursuant to a limited probationaryagreement was in bad faith or for illegal reasons (Matter of Santiago v Horn, 37 AD3d 307 [2007]). At best,petitioner merely raised factual disputes that do not entitle her to a hearing.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Renwick, JJ. [See 2007NY Slip Op 30938(U).]