Chamberlin v. Jacobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chamberlin v. Jacobson

260 A.D.2d 317, 689 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4368

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

DecidedApril 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 317 (Chamberlin v. Jacobson) 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

Chamberlin v. Jacobson, 260 A.D.2d 317, 689 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about May 8, 1997, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 application to compel his reinstatement to his former position with respondent New York City Department of Correction on the ground that his termination was in violation of Civil Service Law § 75-b, the whistle-blower statute, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application should be denied upon the basis of respondents’ proof establishing that petitioner was terminated because of budgetary concerns and his lack of the appropriate professional background. There is no basis to find that petitioner was terminated solely in retaliation for his purported whistleblowing disclosures (Civil Service Law § 75-b [3] [a]; [4]; see, Matter of Crossman-Battisti v Traficanti, 235 AD2d 566, 568). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about May 8, 1997, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 application to compel his reinstatement to his former position with respondent New York City Department of Correction on the ground that his termination was in violation of Civil Service Law § 75-b, the whistle-blower statute, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application should be denied upon the basis of respondents’ proof establishing that petitioner was terminated because of budgetary concerns and his lack of the appropriate professional background. There is no basis to find that petitioner was terminated solely in retaliation for his purported whistleblowing disclosures (Civil Service Law § 75-b [3] [a]; [4]; see, Matter of Crossman-Battisti v Traficanti, 235 AD2d 566, 568). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 317, 689 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlin-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack