Baez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baez v. New York City Housing Authority

203 A.D.2d 184, 612 N.Y.S.2d 849

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

DecidedApril 26, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 184 (Baez v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Baez v. New York City Housing Authority, 203 A.D.2d 184, 612 N.Y.S.2d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.) entered on or about June 18, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition challenging his dismissal as a probationary New York City Housing Authority police officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[185]*185The evidence supports respondent’s determination that petitioner, a probationary officer, was improperly involved in acts of misconduct against two purported drug addicts. Accordingly, petitioner’s termination was not "for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761).

Nor is petitioner entitled to a name-clearing hearing since he has not demonstrated that respondent has publicly disseminated stigmatizing reasons for his termination which might preclude him from finding employment elsewhere (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.) entered on or about June 18, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition challenging his dismissal as a probationary New York City Housing Authority police officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[185]*185The evidence supports respondent’s determination that petitioner, a probationary officer, was improperly involved in acts of misconduct against two purported drug addicts. Accordingly, petitioner’s termination was not "for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761).

Nor is petitioner entitled to a name-clearing hearing since he has not demonstrated that respondent has publicly disseminated stigmatizing reasons for his termination which might preclude him from finding employment elsewhere (Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 184, 612 N.Y.S.2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack