VIJUNGCO v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (2025)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered April 2, 2024, denying the petition to annul and rescind petitioner's resignation as a probationary police officer effective May 8, 2023, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under CPLR article 78 because the termination of petitioner's employment was accomplished by voluntary resignation rather than an administrative determination (see Matter of Quaranta v. Jacobson, 250 A.D.2d 544, 545, 675 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 1998];  Matter of Garcia v. New York City Probation Dept., 208 A.D.2d 475, 476, 617 N.Y.S.2d 724 [1st Dept. 1994]).  The record reflects that petitioner's resignation as a probationary police officer with respondent Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was voluntary based on his desire to improve his chances of reinstatement in the future.

Even assuming petitioner's resignation was not voluntary, he failed to present evidence showing that termination of his employment by MTA was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, in bad faith, or violative of law and procedure (see James v. Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Orangetown & Clarkstown, 37 N.Y.2d 891, 892, 378 N.Y.S.2d 371, 340 N.E.2d 735 [1975]).  Mere speculation or bald or conclusory allegations of bad faith, as were asserted here, are insufficient to meet petitioner's burden of proof (see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v. Kelly, 28 A.D.3d 320, 321, 812 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept. 2006]), and evidence in the record supported the conclusion that his performance was rated unacceptable multiple times, which established that the discharge was made in good faith (see Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649, 650, 505 N.Y.S.2d 64, 496 N.E.2d 223 [1986]).  Petitioner's performance in phases 2 and 3, and the remedial training phase was found below expectations and unacceptable by different Field Training Officers.

Petitioner's claim of bias based on his ethnicity is similarly unsupported by evidence in the record (see James v. National Arts Club, 99 A.D.3d 523, 525–526, 952 N.Y.S.2d 158 [1st Dept. 2012], lv dismissed 21 N.Y.3d 886, 965 N.Y.S.2d 778, 988 N.E.2d 515 [2013]).  Petitioner failed to present anything that indicated his termination was based on his ethnicity or bias by the Field Training Officers who rated his performance.

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.