Muto v NYS Executive Department Division of Human Rights
Petitioner, Joseph F. Muto, sought to annul decision to terminate his probationary appointment on the grounds of bad faith and arbitrary and capricious action.
Petitioner was hired by respondent, New York Division of Human Rights, for a probationary period of one year. On his application, Muto wrote that though he had worked as a practicing attorney in New York, he was not admitted to the New York bar. Petitioner said that the reason for this was because he was disbarred for negligent client representation by failing to appear for out-of-state cases due to his fear of flying and heights.
During his probationary period, the senior staff held a meeting to review plaintiff’s personnel file and determined that he failed to fully disclose the reasons for his disbarment. A total of 43 serious charges were brought against petitioner and he was terminated.
Muto then brought about this Article 78 proceeding on the ground that his termination was done in bad faith and was arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner’s arguments fail to show that respondent’s determination was in bad faith. Petitioner argued that respondent could have discovered all the details of his disbarment as a matter of public record but this does not mitigate the fact that Muto disclosed certain aspects of his disbarment while hiding others.
Petitioner did not meet his burden to show a triable issue of fact to support a claim of bad faith, improper motive, arbitrariness or capriciousness.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court grants the Respondent’s Cross Motion to dismiss this Petition.
