The record does not demonstrate that the Division's investigation was abbreviated or one-sided, and does demonstrate a rational basis for the determination of no probable cause (see, Matter of Bal v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 202 A.D.2d 236, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 805). The court correctly declined to review petitioner's defamation claim on the ground that it was not raised before the Division and was thus beyond the scope of CPLR article 78 review (see, Matter of Jochnowitz v. Junior Coll., 96 A.D.2d 1131, lv denied 60 N.Y.2d 559). In any event, petitioner's defamation claim is both untimely, since it accrued more than one year before the instant article 78 proceeding was brought, and without merit, since the comments of which petitioner complains were privileged, having been made before the New York State Unemployment Board (see, Noble v. Creative Tech. Servs., 126 A.D.2d 611, 613). We also agree with the court that petitioner was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing since she failed to allege public dissemination of the reasons for her termination (see, Matter of Thomas v. New York Temporary State Commn. on Regulation of Lobbying, 56 N.Y.2d 656). We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.