De Sapio v. Koehler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Sapio v. Koehler

158 A.D.2d 307, 551 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 307 (De Sapio v. Koehler) 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

De Sapio v. Koehler, 158 A.D.2d 307, 551 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner, a probationary appointee, could be terminated without a hearing and without reasons being stated, provided the termination was made in good faith and not capriciously (Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, 639; Matter of Vaillancourt v New York State Liq. Auth., 153 AD2d 531, 533). Here, petitioner was terminated because he took advantage of his 1986 knee injury to remain on restricted duty an excessively long time, and then improperly sought a full-duty assignment at a location with minimal, if any, inmate contact. The record supports the conclusion that neither disability nor injury was the reason for petitioner’s dismissal, but rather his misuse and evasion of the liberal leave and restricted duty policies of the Correction Department (see, Dicocco v Capital Area Community Health Plan, 135 AD2d 308, 309; Matter of Bonney v Dilworth, 99 AD2d 468, 469). Concur—Kupferman, J. P„, Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Petitioner, a probationary appointee, could be terminated without a hearing and without reasons being stated, provided the termination was made in good faith and not capriciously (Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, 639; Matter of Vaillancourt v New York State Liq. Auth., 153 AD2d 531, 533). Here, petitioner was terminated because he took advantage of his 1986 knee injury to remain on restricted duty an excessively long time, and then improperly sought a full-duty assignment at a location with minimal, if any, inmate contact. The record supports the conclusion that neither disability nor injury was the reason for petitioner’s dismissal, but rather his misuse and evasion of the liberal leave and restricted duty policies of the Correction Department (see, Dicocco v Capital Area Community Health Plan, 135 AD2d 308, 309; Matter of Bonney v Dilworth, 99 AD2d 468, 469). Concur—Kupferman, J. P„, Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 307, 551 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-sapio-v-koehler-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack