Abreu v. Doherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abreu v. Doherty

63 A.D.3d 490, 879 N.Y.S.2d 712

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 490 (Abreu v. Doherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. Doherty, 63 A.D.3d 490, 879 N.Y.S.2d 712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered December 24, 2007, which granted the petition to annul respondent Department of Sanitation’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment to the extent of remanding the matter for consideration of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that respondent’s determination to terminate his probationary employment was made in bad faith (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649 [1986]; Matter of Soto v Koehler, 171 AD2d 567, 568 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 855 [1991]). The record establishes that on two occasions petitioner failed to timely notify respondent that he would be either late or absent due to illness, as required by respondent’s rules governing probationary employees, and nothing in the record suggests that respondent’s rejection of his explanations for these failures was irrational (see Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, 107 [2005]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 34185(U).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered December 24, 2007, which granted the petition to annul respondent Department of Sanitation’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment to the extent of remanding the matter for consideration of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that respondent’s determination to terminate his probationary employment was made in bad faith (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649 [1986]; Matter of Soto v Koehler, 171 AD2d 567, 568 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 855 [1991]). The record establishes that on two occasions petitioner failed to timely notify respondent that he would be either late or absent due to illness, as required by respondent’s rules governing probationary employees, and nothing in the record suggests that respondent’s rejection of his explanations for these failures was irrational (see Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, 107 [2005]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 34185(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 490, 879 N.Y.S.2d 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-doherty-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack