Case Name: In the Matter of Bernard Blum, Appellant, v. Nathan Quinones, as Chancellor of Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1988-04-04
Citations: 139 A.D.2d 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Bernard Blum, Appellant, v Nathan Quinones, as Chancellor of Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Bernard Blum, Appellant, v Nathan Quinones, as Chancellor of Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Opinion:
— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York which terminated the petitioner's employment as a probationary high school teacher, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 17, 1986, which dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner was a probationary high school teacher of biology and general science who was discharged for being late 117 times during the 1984-1985 school year and for unsatisfactory teaching performance documented by many reports. The petitioner claims he was not afforded a full hearing to review the Chancellor's decision to terminate his probationary status. However, it is well settled that employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without specific reasons being stated and, in the absence of bad faith, the determination must be upheld (Matter of Ostoyich v State of New York, 99 AD2d 839, lv denied 62 NY2d 605). There was no showing of bad faith.
The petitioner also seeks a declaration of his rights under his teaching license. This license has not been revoked by the Chancellor, and the granting of such relief is clearly unwar ranted. The petitioner further seeks a name-clearing hearing, claiming he has been stigmatized by the charge regarding his excessive tardiness. The petitioner has failed to submit any evidence of his being stigmatized and, therefore, such a hearing is unnecessary (see, Matter of Petix v Connelie, 47 NY2d 457; cf., Matter of Merhige v Copaigue School Dist., 76 AD2d 926). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.