Claudio v. Abate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claudio v. Abate

213 A.D.2d 188, 624 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 188 (Claudio v. Abate) 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

Claudio v. Abate, 213 A.D.2d 188, 624 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment (denominated an [189]*189order), Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered January 5, 1994, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking reinstatement as a probationary employee with retroactive pay to the time of his termination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s decision to terminate petitioner’s employment as a probationary employee two days before his probationary period expired is not subject to annulment by the court, petitioner having failed to demonstrate the determination was made in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law (Thomas v City of New York, 169 AD2d 496). Indeed, we agree with the IAS Court that the record demonstrated a material basis for respondent’s conclusion that petitioner filed a false report concerning an incident involving excessive force by a fellow correction officer upon an inmate. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment (denominated an [189]*189order), Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered January 5, 1994, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking reinstatement as a probationary employee with retroactive pay to the time of his termination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s decision to terminate petitioner’s employment as a probationary employee two days before his probationary period expired is not subject to annulment by the court, petitioner having failed to demonstrate the determination was made in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law (Thomas v City of New York, 169 AD2d 496). Indeed, we agree with the IAS Court that the record demonstrated a material basis for respondent’s conclusion that petitioner filed a false report concerning an incident involving excessive force by a fellow correction officer upon an inmate. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 188, 624 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claudio-v-abate-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack