Deitch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deitch v. City of New York

90 A.D.3d 924, 935 N.Y.2d 79

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 924 (Deitch v. City of New York) 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

Deitch v. City of New York, 90 A.D.3d 924, 935 N.Y.2d 79 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter the petitioner) was a probationary police officer employed by the New York Police [925]*925Department (hereinafter the NYPD). The NYPD terminated the petitioner’s employment, without a hearing, after his end-of-probation drug testing revealed a positive result for cocaine. The petitioner commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and action against the City of New York and the NYPD (hereinafter together the appellants) seeking, inter alia, to be reinstated and to recover damages for his allegedly wrongful termination. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court determined, among other things, that the hair follicle drug test administered by the NYPD to the petitioner ran afoul of the collective bargaining process and, therefore, that the termination of the petitioner’s employment based upon the subject test was in bad faith. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

“A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that the dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Matter of Barry v City of New York, 21 AD3d 551, 551 [2005]). “The petitioner bears the burden of establishing bad faith or illegal reasons by competent evidence” (Matter of Robinson v Health & Hosps. Corp., 29 AD3d 807, 809 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, contrary to the reasoning of the Supreme Court, the appellants did not illegally or improperly administer the subject hair follicle test and, instead, properly considered the positive results of the subject test (see Matter of City of New York v Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc., 14 NY3d 46, 49 [2009]; Matter of Goldin v Kelly, 77 AD3d 475, 476 [2010]; Matter of Chiofalo v Kelly, 70 AD3d 423 [2010]). Since the petitioner failed to establish that his termination, based upon those test results, was in bad faith or was otherwise illegal or arbitrary and capricious, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and confirmed the determination (see Matter of Goldin v Kelly, 77 AD3d at 476; Matter of Chiofalo v Kelly, 70 AD3d at 423; Walsh v New York State Thruway Auth., 24 AD3d 755, 757 [2005]; Matter of Santoro v County of Suffolk, 20 AD3d 429 [2005]).

Based upon the foregoing, the appellants’ remaining contention has been rendered academic. Mastro, A.PJ., Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter the petitioner) was a probationary police officer employed by the New York Police [925]*925Department (hereinafter the NYPD). The NYPD terminated the petitioner’s employment, without a hearing, after his end-of-probation drug testing revealed a positive result for cocaine. The petitioner commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and action against the City of New York and the NYPD (hereinafter together the appellants) seeking, inter alia, to be reinstated and to recover damages for his allegedly wrongful termination. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court determined, among other things, that the hair follicle drug test administered by the NYPD to the petitioner ran afoul of the collective bargaining process and, therefore, that the termination of the petitioner’s employment based upon the subject test was in bad faith. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

“A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that the dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Matter of Barry v City of New York, 21 AD3d 551, 551 [2005]). “The petitioner bears the burden of establishing bad faith or illegal reasons by competent evidence” (Matter of Robinson v Health & Hosps. Corp., 29 AD3d 807, 809 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, contrary to the reasoning of the Supreme Court, the appellants did not illegally or improperly administer the subject hair follicle test and, instead, properly considered the positive results of the subject test (see Matter of City of New York v Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc., 14 NY3d 46, 49 [2009]; Matter of Goldin v Kelly, 77 AD3d 475, 476 [2010]; Matter of Chiofalo v Kelly, 70 AD3d 423 [2010]). Since the petitioner failed to establish that his termination, based upon those test results, was in bad faith or was otherwise illegal or arbitrary and capricious, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and confirmed the determination (see Matter of Goldin v Kelly, 77 AD3d at 476; Matter of Chiofalo v Kelly, 70 AD3d at 423; Walsh v New York State Thruway Auth., 24 AD3d 755, 757 [2005]; Matter of Santoro v County of Suffolk, 20 AD3d 429 [2005]).

Based upon the foregoing, the appellants’ remaining contention has been rendered academic. Mastro, A.PJ., Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 924, 935 N.Y.2d 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deitch-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack