Higgins v. La Paglia

Mercure, J. P.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). We respectfully dissent. We agree with the majority that *682petitioner was a probationary employee but, unlike the majority, conclude that petitioner failed to support his petition with competent evidence sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether his discharge was unrelated to work performance or was motivated by a “constitutionally impermissible purpose, in violation of applicable law or made in bad faith” (Matter of Scott v Workers’ Compensation Bd., 275 AD2d 877; see, Matter of Gordon v Town of Queensbury, 256 AD2d 784,…