From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Manel v. Mosca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner, a probationary employee with the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, was given the choice of resigning or being discharged from his position as a police officer. The petitioner resigned. Thereafter, he commenced this proceeding seeking, inter alia, the annulment of his resignation.

Absent a showing of fraud, duress, coercion or other affirmative misconduct which renders a resignation involuntary, a resignation cannot be withdrawn once it has been accepted (see, Schmitt v. Hicksville UFSD No. 17, 200 A.D.2d 661, 663; Matter of Gould v. Board of Educ., 184 A.D.2d 640, revd on other grounds 81 N.Y.2d 446). Here, the threat of termination did not constitute duress or coercion because the respondents had a legal right to discharge the petitioner (see, Matter of Girard v. Board of Educ., 168 A.D.2d 183, 185; Matter of Rychlick v. Coughlin, 99 A.D.2d 863, 864, affd 63 N.Y.2d 643). A probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of the reasons for termination as long as the dismissal was made in good faith and was constitutional (see, Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649, 650; Matter of York v. McGuire, 63 N.Y.2d 760; Murphy v Town of Southampton, 168 A.D.2d 545, 546-547). Here, the evidence established that the determination to discharge the petitioner was based on his unsatisfactory performance. Because the determination was made in good faith, the respondents had the legal right to terminate the petitioner (see, Matter of Johnson v. Katz, supra; Matter of York v. McGuire, 99 A.D.2d 1023, affd 63 N.Y.2d 760, supra). Therefore, the petitioner's resignation was not coerced and may not be withdrawn (see, Matter of Girard v Board of Educ., supra; Matter of Rychlick v. Coughlin, supra).

Since the petitioner resigned, he was not entitled to written notification of termination pursuant to Westchester County Civil Service Rule 11.1 (e). Pizzuto, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Manel v. Mosca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Manel v. Mosca

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL MANEL, Appellant, v. ANTHONY M. MOSCA et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 19, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 188

Citing Cases

Ortlieb v. Lewis Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

Our review is limited to whether the Sheriff's "determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was…

Muller v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

The petitioner's assertion that she was not given a chance to conduct discovery to acquire evidence to…