Matter of Stanziale v. Executive Dep't, Office of Gen. Servs.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lutwin v. Alleyne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Serowick v. Barry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Matter of Khan v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- McMillan v. Department of Citywide Administrative Services (New York Supreme Court 2015)
- Meyers v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Carchietta v. Department of Personnel of City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Garrison v. Koehler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Vaillancourt v. New York State Liquor Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Bykofsky v. Hess (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Hogan v. New York State Office of Mental Health (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- MATTER OF BERGAMINI v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth. (N.Y. 1984)
- York v. McGuire (N.Y. 1984)
- Lancto v. Saranac Lake Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Miller v. Ravitch (N.Y. 1983)
- Bergamini v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
There is no dispute but that petitioner was a nontenured employee of the Office of General Services at the time of his termination. Because of his nontenured status, in the *737 absence of petitioner’s demonstration that the termination was for constitutionally impermissible reasons or prohibited by statute or policies established by decisional law, OGS was free to effect the termination without reasons and without a hearing (Matter of Holbrook v State Ins. Fund, 54 NY2d 892; James v Board of Educ., 37 NY2d 891, 892). Our review of the record here reveals that such proscriptions were not violated.
Moreover, even if the reason OGS nevertheless elected to give for the termination in this case could be said to have been stigmatizing (see, generally, Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564), any hearing to which the petitioner might be entitled under such circumstances was accorded him.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.