### Hughes v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 31347(U) April 17, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159747/2020 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001 (U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001 Page 1 of 4 The following e

- filed documents, l isted by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1

- 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
were read on this motion to/for Article 78

.



### The petition to reinstate petitioner to her position as a caseworker for respondent New
York City Department of Social Services/Human Resources Administration , Department of

Homeless Services is denied.

Background

Petitioner insists she worked for the De partment of Homeless Services (“DHS”) 2 

### as a
caseworker starting in May 2019. She was assigned to a shelter facility in Brooklyn. Petitioner

claims that she told her supervisors that she had no experience doing casework in a shelter and so

she would need training in order to do her job. Petitioner maintains that despite this plea, she
never received any training and so it was difficult to meet her job responsibilities. Petitioner

1 The Court is well aware that this proceeding has been pending for years. Although it was only reassigned to the undersigned this week, the Court profusely apologizes, on behalf of the Court system, for the long delay in the resolution of this proceeding.
2 DHS is an administrative u nit within the Department of Social Services.



## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: 

### HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14
Justice

----------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------- X INDEX NO. 159747/2020

MOTION DATE N/A 1

MOTION SEQ. NO. 001



### DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION NAZZARI HUGHES,

Petitioner,



### - v
- CI TY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES
Respondents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

1 of 4 

## [* 1]159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001 Page 2 of 4 

### acknowledges that she received an unsatisfactory performance rating in April 2020 and that her
supervisor refused to meet with her about this evaluation. She alleges that she was a permanent
employee at DHS and that she completed her one

- year probationary period.
In opposition, respondents contend that petitioner never achieved permanent status and,
instead, was still a probationary employee. They observe that petitioner’s probationary period
was extended to September 2, 2020 and she was terminated on that day. Respondents detail the
extensions of petitioner’s probationary perio d, which included annual and sick leave as well as
an agreement between petitioner’s union and respondents relating to the COVID

- 19 pandemic.
This agreement included an extension of three months and 17 days to the probationary periods of
eligible employee s.
Respondents maintain that they had a good faith reason to fire petitioner

— her poor
performance review. They point out that she received unsatisfactory rating s for both the August
through November 2019 time period as well as the November 2019 through F ebruary 2020
evaluation period . Respondents claim that petitioner’s supervisor then recommended her
termination, after which respondents began an investigation into petitioner’s performance.
Respondents then decided to terminate petitioner’s employment.
Petitioner explains in reply that she was not provided with due process procedures under

Section 75 of New York’s Civil Service Law. She insists that DHS knew she had no prior
experience performing the duties of a caseworker and that she was treated unfai rly by her
supervisors. Petitioner claims that the agreement between her union and the city did not affect
her right to seek protection under the Civil Service Law. She argues that although her
probationary period was extended, that did not change the fact that she completed a year of

service. INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

2 of 4 

## [* 2]159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001 Page 3 of 4 

### Petitioner also submit s a reply affidavit in which she insists that her supervisors created a
hostile work environment and harassed her. She contends that these supervisors did not make
any effort to help her and instead just offered criticism.

Discussion
The central question in this proceeding is whether or not petitioner was a probationary
employee. Respondents included an agreement that provided, in pertinent part, that:

“ The probationary period for all employees who were in their probationary period (including competitive, non

- competitive, and Labor class employees) shall be tolled during this period. Therefore, any employee who was in their probationary period as of March 13, 2020, will have the ir probationary period automatically extended by 3 months and 17 days. Performance evaluations for probationary employees shall be held in abeyance during this period, and probationary employees will not be issued evaluations from the date of this side let ter through June 30, 2020” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 16).
A plain reading of this agreement provision supports respondents’ position that petitioner
was still a probationary employee on the day she was terminated. Petitioner does not directly
dispute that she was still, technically, a probationary employee. Ins tead, she appears to argue
that even though she was still on probation, she was nevertheless entitled to the protections of

Civil Service Law § 75 because she had worked for a year. Put another way, petitioner seems to
suggest that she met the criteria for certain process protections under the Civil Service Law by
working for a year even though she remained a probationary employee.
The Court disagrees with petitioner’s interpretation of this extension. She did not cite
any caselaw for the proposition tha t an extension of a probationary period does not
simultaneously delay the right to protections under the Civil Service Law (such as a hearing). In
fact, courts have often concluded that employees are not entitled to hearings under the Civil

Service Law wh ere their probationary periods have been extended ( e.g., Tomlinson v Ward , 110

AD2d 537, 538
, 487 NYS2d 779 [1st Dept 1985] [rejecting a claim for a hearing under the Civil INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

3 of 4 

## [* 3]159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001 Page 4 of 4 

### Service Law on the ground that petitioner remained a probationary employee]). Simpl y put,
because petitioner was a probationary employee at the time she was terminated, this Court must

evaluate her termination under that standard.

“A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement

of reasons in the absen ce of any demonstration that the dismissal was for a constitutionally
impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law ” ( Thomas v City of New

York , 169 AD2d 496, 497

- 98 , 169 AD2d 496 [1st Dept 1991 ] ). Here, there is no basis to find tha t
petitioner was fired in bad faith. Petitioner readily admits that she received underwhelming
performance reviews; this constitutes a permissible basis to end petitioner’s employment as a
probationary employee. That she blames DHS for not properly traini ng her is not a basis to find
that her termination was improper.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

disbursements.

4/1 7/2024 $SIG$ DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH , J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON

- FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

4 of 4

# □**□**

[* 4]