Bifolco v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bifolco v. Kelly

79 A.D.3d 544, 912 N.Y.S.2d 402

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 544 (Bifolco v. Kelly) 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

Bifolco v. Kelly, 79 A.D.3d 544, 912 N.Y.S.2d 402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered January 15, 2009, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary police officer, and directed entry of a judgment dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[545]*545The record establishes that petitioner was on restricted duty from December 29, 2006 through June 18, 2007 and, therefore, his six-month disciplinary probationary term did not begin until June 19, 2007 and did not end until December 19, 2007 (see Matter of Garcia v Bratton, 90 NY2d 991, 992-993 [1997]). Because the incidents leading to petitioner’s dismissal occurred on August 3, 2007, well within the probationary period, respondents could terminate petitioner without a hearing (see Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Witherspoon v Horn, 19 AD3d 250, 251 [2005]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Acosta, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered January 15, 2009, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary police officer, and directed entry of a judgment dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[545]*545The record establishes that petitioner was on restricted duty from December 29, 2006 through June 18, 2007 and, therefore, his six-month disciplinary probationary term did not begin until June 19, 2007 and did not end until December 19, 2007 (see Matter of Garcia v Bratton, 90 NY2d 991, 992-993 [1997]). Because the incidents leading to petitioner’s dismissal occurred on August 3, 2007, well within the probationary period, respondents could terminate petitioner without a hearing (see Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Witherspoon v Horn, 19 AD3d 250, 251 [2005]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Acosta, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 544, 912 N.Y.S.2d 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bifolco-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack