Dukelow v. Lum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dukelow v. Lum

112 A.D.2d 302, 491 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56091

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 302 (Dukelow v. Lum) 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

Dukelow v. Lum, 112 A.D.2d 302, 491 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Lum terminating petitioner’s employment at the Harlem Valley Center Division of Youth and to reinstate her to that position with back pay, benefits and accruals, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered March 9, 1984, which dismissed her petition on the merits.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as there was a rational basis for the determination dismissing the petitioner, a probationary employee who had been on medical leave without pay for some five months prior to the termination of her employment, the determination sought to be reviewed was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, 639). Nor is there any support for petitioner’s contention that there was a discriminatory motive for her discharge in contravention of Executive Law § 296 (see, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 532) since the record indicates that she was not reasonably able to perform the duties of the subject position. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, 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 Lum terminating petitioner’s employment at the Harlem Valley Center Division of Youth and to reinstate her to that position with back pay, benefits and accruals, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered March 9, 1984, which dismissed her petition on the merits.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as there was a rational basis for the determination dismissing the petitioner, a probationary employee who had been on medical leave without pay for some five months prior to the termination of her employment, the determination sought to be reviewed was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, Matter of Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, 639). Nor is there any support for petitioner’s contention that there was a discriminatory motive for her discharge in contravention of Executive Law § 296 (see, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 532) since the record indicates that she was not reasonably able to perform the duties of the subject position. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 302, 491 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dukelow-v-lum-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack