Borrero v. New York City Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borrero v. New York City Department of Correction

197 A.D.2d 418, 602 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 14, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.) entered June 2, 1992, which dismissed petitioner’s petition for reinstatement as a correction officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, subsequent to his resignation, seeks reinstatement to his position as a probationary correction officer. However, since the rules and regulations of the City Personnel Director do not provide for reinstatement of a probationary employee, petitioner has not established his entitlement to judicial review of respondent’s refusal to reinstate him (Matter of Spurling v Police Dept., 49 AD2d 823, appeal dismissed 38 NY2d 826). Were we to review respondent’s determination, we would find that in light of the confidential review of petitioner’s personnel history that was undertaken, petitioner did not establish that his request was denied in bad faith. Petitioner’s remaining arguments were not raised before the IAS Court and cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal (see, Matter of Belgrave v Ward, 72 AD2d 898). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.) entered June 2, 1992, which dismissed petitioner’s petition for reinstatement as a correction officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, subsequent to his resignation, seeks reinstatement to his position as a probationary correction officer. However, since the rules and regulations of the City Personnel Director do not provide for reinstatement of a probationary employee, petitioner has not established his entitlement to judicial review of respondent’s refusal to reinstate him (Matter of Spurling v Police Dept., 49 AD2d 823, appeal dismissed 38 NY2d 826). Were we to review respondent’s determination, we would find that in light of the confidential review of petitioner’s personnel history that was undertaken, petitioner did not establish that his request was denied in bad faith. Petitioner’s remaining arguments were not raised before the IAS Court and cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal (see, Matter of Belgrave v Ward, 72 AD2d 898). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Borrero v. New York City Department of Correction, 197 A.D.2d 418, 602 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

197 A.D.2d 418 (Borrero v. New York City Department of Correction) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related