IN RE: Application of Paul F. GUIDA (1997)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered July 31, 1996, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondents' discharge of petitioner as a probationary police officer, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, and bringing up for review pursuant to CPLR 5517(b), an order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about October 2, 1996, which, upon renewal, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Judicial review of petitioner's discharge is limited to whether the discharge was made in bad faith (Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649, 505 N.Y.S.2d 64, 496 N.E.2d 223).   The indisputable evidence that petitioner failed to meet the academic standards required of police recruits establishes that the discharge was made in good faith (see, Matter of Tabone v. Codd, 54 A.D.2d 543, 387 N.Y.S.2d 122;  Matter of Green v. Murphy, 41 A.D.2d 716, 341 N.Y.S.2d 873).   Nothing is alleged to justify judicial interference with respondents' evaluation of petitioner's academic performance (see, Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241, 245, 557 N.Y.S.2d 297, 556 N.E.2d 1104;  Matter of McIntosh v. Borough of Manhattan Community Coll., 78 A.D.2d 839, 433 N.Y.S.2d 446, affd 55 N.Y.2d 913, 449 N.Y.S.2d 26, 433 N.E.2d 1274).   Nor is an issue of bad faith raised by petitioner's allegation that he should have been held to the standards applicable to prior classes for which he claims to have been eligible but to which he was not admitted, or by his allegation that there was a revision of academic standards after his commencement of training.   We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.