Dawson v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dawson v. New York City Transit Authority

115 A.D.2d 477, 496 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54863

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 477 (Dawson v. New York City Transit 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

Dawson v. New York City Transit Authority, 115 A.D.2d 477, 496 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dismissing the petitioner from his employment, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated December 8, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner was hired as a cleaner by respondent New York City Transit Authority on or about March 15, 1982, with a probationary period to last one year. In accordance with the rules of the New York City Personnel Director, petitioner’s probationary status was automatically extended because of his absence from work for 59% days. This court need not determine whether the 7% sick days for which defendant was paid should have been counted toward the extension or not, because, even disregarding those days, petitioner was discharged during the legitimate extension of his probationary period (cf. Matter of Glisson v Steisel, 96 AD2d 83). The discharge was based upon petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by several cautions during the extension of his probation. Thus, there was a rational basis for the discharge, and no hearing was required (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dismissing the petitioner from his employment, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated December 8, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner was hired as a cleaner by respondent New York City Transit Authority on or about March 15, 1982, with a probationary period to last one year. In accordance with the rules of the New York City Personnel Director, petitioner’s probationary status was automatically extended because of his absence from work for 59% days. This court need not determine whether the 7% sick days for which defendant was paid should have been counted toward the extension or not, because, even disregarding those days, petitioner was discharged during the legitimate extension of his probationary period (cf. Matter of Glisson v Steisel, 96 AD2d 83). The discharge was based upon petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by several cautions during the extension of his probation. Thus, there was a rational basis for the discharge, and no hearing was required (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 477, 496 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack