Hicks v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hicks v. City of New York

1 A.D.3d 218, 767 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11910

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 218 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. City of New York, 1 A.D.3d 218, 767 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered September 24, 2002, which denied petitioners’ joint application brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination dismissing petitioners from their employment as probationary police officers and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents properly dismissed petitioners from their probationary employment when reliable drug tests established that they had used cocaine, and we find no evidence of bad faith or illegality (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649 [1986]; Matter of Brown v City of New York, 250 AD2d 546 [1998]). Petitioners’ arguments concerning alleged disparate treatment of a probationary officer claimed to be similarly situated to petitioners are unsupported by the record. Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Tom, Mazzarelli and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered September 24, 2002, which denied petitioners’ joint application brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination dismissing petitioners from their employment as probationary police officers and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents properly dismissed petitioners from their probationary employment when reliable drug tests established that they had used cocaine, and we find no evidence of bad faith or illegality (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649 [1986]; Matter of Brown v City of New York, 250 AD2d 546 [1998]). Petitioners’ arguments concerning alleged disparate treatment of a probationary officer claimed to be similarly situated to petitioners are unsupported by the record. Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Tom, Mazzarelli and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 218, 767 N.Y.S.2d 226, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack