Gulati v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gulati v. New York City Transit Authority

239 A.D.2d 417, 658 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 417 (Gulati 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

Gulati v. New York City Transit Authority, 239 A.D.2d 417, 658 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a [418]*418proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dated June 27, 1995, which, without a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated March 5, 1996, which granted the petition and reinstated the petitioner.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

After nine years of service as a provisional employee, the petitioner’s employment was terminated on June 27, 1995, without a hearing. Thereafter, he initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding arguing that he had been appointed to the permanent position of Staff Analyst and therefore was entitled to a pre-termination hearing. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, however, the termination of his employment occurred before the permanent Staff Analyst appointments were to be made. Therefore, the petitioner was terminated as a provisional Civil Service employee and as such was not entitled to a hearing or statement of reasons for his termination (see, Matter of Preddice v Callanan, 69 NY2d 812, 814; Matter of Geoghegan v Rivera, 213 AD2d 716; Iritano v New York City Tr. Auth., 175 AD2d 918, 919). Moreover, absent a violation of a constitutional or statutory provision, reinstatement is not an available remedy (see, Iritano v New, York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a [418]*418proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dated June 27, 1995, which, without a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated March 5, 1996, which granted the petition and reinstated the petitioner.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

After nine years of service as a provisional employee, the petitioner’s employment was terminated on June 27, 1995, without a hearing. Thereafter, he initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding arguing that he had been appointed to the permanent position of Staff Analyst and therefore was entitled to a pre-termination hearing. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, however, the termination of his employment occurred before the permanent Staff Analyst appointments were to be made. Therefore, the petitioner was terminated as a provisional Civil Service employee and as such was not entitled to a hearing or statement of reasons for his termination (see, Matter of Preddice v Callanan, 69 NY2d 812, 814; Matter of Geoghegan v Rivera, 213 AD2d 716; Iritano v New York City Tr. Auth., 175 AD2d 918, 919). Moreover, absent a violation of a constitutional or statutory provision, reinstatement is not an available remedy (see, Iritano v New, York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 417, 658 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulati-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack