IN RE: Malik SHABAZZ (2009)

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cahill, J.), entered May 9, 2008 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent terminating petitioner's employment.

In February 2007, respondent hired petitioner as a chaplain on a probationarybasis.   In October 2007, several employees allegedly made observations regarding petitioner that were sufficient to establish a potential violation of respondent's employment rules.   As a result of that incident, as well as an earlier episode noted by petitioner's supervisor, petitioner's employment was terminated.   Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that respondent terminated him in bad faith.   Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner appeals.

 We affirm.   As a probationary employee, petitioner may only challenge his termination if he demonstrates that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper reason (see Matter of Swinton v. Safir, 93 N.Y.2d 758, 763, 697 N.Y.S.2d 869, 720 N.E.2d 89 [1999];  Matter of Suleman v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 27 A.D.3d 1040, 1041, 812 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2006];  Matter of Garrity v. University at Albany, 301 A.D.2d 1015, 1016, 755 N.Y.S.2d 471 [2003] ).   No hearing or even a statement of reasons is required absent proof that the discharge was constitutionally impermissible or in violation of law.   Petitioner bears the burden of submitting proof “sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the dismissal was due to causes unrelated to work performance and/or improperly motivated” (Matter of Gordon v. Town of Queensbury, 256 A.D.2d 784, 785, 681 N.Y.S.2d 406 [1998] ).   Here, respondent amply demonstrated that petitioner was dismissed due to the belief, supported by the statements of several employees and his supervisor, that there had been a potential violation of the rules of employment, and that this posed a security and safety risk.   Petitioner asserts that those individuals were mistaken or lying and states that the prior allegation regarding his conduct was satisfactorily resolved.   We, however, view these unsupported assertions as insufficient to call into question whether his dismissal was unrelated to his work performance or otherwise improper (see Matter of Scott v. Workers' Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y., 275 A.D.2d 877, 878, 713 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2000];  Matter of Kearney v. Coughlin, 110 A.D.2d 1011, 1012, 488 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1985] ).   Nor are we persuaded that respondent was obliged to perform any manner of physical testing of petitioner.   Respondent's employee handbook neither obligated respondent to require petitioner to undergo a fitness for duty examination nor allowed petitioner to demand such an examination.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

GARRY, J.

MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR. and STEIN, JJ., concur.