Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is firmly established that the termination of the employment of a probationary employee without a statement of reasons or a hearing must be upheld unless there is a demonstration that the dismissal was violative of the Constitution, illegal, or made in bad faith (see, Matter of York v McGuire, 63 N.Y.2d 760; Matter of Dozier v New York City, 130 A.D.2d 128). The conclusory allegations of the petitioners were insufficient to sustain their burden (see generally, Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 N.Y.2d 637; Matter of Macklin v Powell, 107 A.D.2d 964) inasmuch as they failed to raise genuine factual issues as to the unconstitutionality or arbitrariness of the terminations (see, Matter of York v McGuire, 99 A.D.2d 1023, affd 63 N.Y.2d 760, supra; see generally, D'Aiuto v Department of Water Resources [Bureau of Water Supply], 51 A.D.2d 700).
The petitioners are not entitled to name-clearing hearings as there was no proof that the respondents created and disseminated a false and defamatory impression regarding the reasons for their terminations (see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 N.Y.2d 874; Matter of Bergamini v Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 62 N.Y.2d 897; Matter of Miller v Siraguse, 134 A.D.2d 910).
We have considered the petitioners' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.