"It is well settled that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that dismissal was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law" (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 N.Y.2d 760, 761). Judicial review of a determination to discharge a probationary employee is therefore limited to an inquiry as to whether the termination was made in bad faith (Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649, 650). While a hearing may be required where an issue of a substantial nature is raised that the termination was not due to the failure to perform satisfactory service during the probationary period and was due to causes unrelated to work performance (see, Miciotta v McMickens, 118 A.D.2d 489, 491), the petitioner bears the burden of presenting competent proof that the dismissal was for an improper reason or in bad faith (see, Matter of Anonymous v Codd, 40 N.Y.2d 860).
Our review of the record, as it was presented to the court which set the matter down for a hearing pursuant to CPLR 7804 (h), demonstrates that the petitioner failed to present evidence warranting a hearing. The record in fact shows that her discharge was not based upon reasons unrelated to her performance or in bad faith. Moreover, we find that it was improper for the hearing court to have considered testimony from the petitioner's unemployment insurance administrative hearing in reaching its decision to order a hearing; the proceedings before the Department of Labor were irrelevant to the proceedings before the Supreme Court (Gault v Abate, 210 A.D.2d 56, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 803; Thomas v City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 496, 498).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.