Opinion
Argued September 13, 1976
Decided October 14, 1976
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, SIDNEY A. FINE, J.
Ira Leitel and Harold B. Foner for appellant.
W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (Leonard Koerner and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), for respondents.
MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. On this appeal, petitioner seeks an annulment of respondent police commissioner's determination to terminate his services as a probationary police officer without a hearing. As a probationary employee, petitioner is not entitled to an administrative hearing concerning the reasons for his dismissal absent proof, not present in this record, that the dismissal was for an improper reason or in bad faith (Matter of Bergstein v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 318; Haberman v Codd, 48 A.D.2d 505; Matter of Reeves v Golar, 45 A.D.2d 163; Matter of Ramos v Department of Mental Hygiene, 34 A.D.2d 925). In light of the uncontested facts concerning petitioner's involvement with organized crime, even assuming that those liaisons were innocently undertaken in connection with his previous employment as a so-called undercover agent, the discharge was rationally based and not arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 N.Y.2d 637; Matter of Farrell v New York City Police Dept., 37 N.Y.2d 843). Also significant and supportive of respondent's decision is the fact that neither prior to nor upon his entry into the police department, did petitioner disclose his organized crime contacts.
In his prayer for relief below, petitioner sought only an annulment of the commissioner's determination and reinstatement as a probationary police officer. Consequently, we do not reach or pass upon the constitutional issue advanced by petitioner.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.