We agree with the motion court that the record provides no basis for plaintiff's claim that he was dismissed by respondent in retaliation for activities protected pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75-b Civ. Serv. (see, Oberson v. City of New York, 232 A.D.2d 172). A review of the record also confirms that plaintiff failed to establish that respondent terminated his employment as a probationary probation officer in bad faith, and not for poor performance (see,Matter of Soto v. Koehler, 171 A.D.2d 567, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855; see also, Roens v. New York City Tr. Auth., 202 A.D.2d 274).
The Referee did not exceed his authority, pursuant to the court's order of reference, by acting as arbiter of fact and credibility (see, Golden v. Golden, 228 A.D.2d 184, appeal dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 929).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and we find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.