John v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

247 A.D.2d 245, 668 N.Y.S.2d 601, 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1781, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1070
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 245 (John v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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
John v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 247 A.D.2d 245, 668 N.Y.S.2d 601, 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1781, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights dated September 27, 1995, finding no probable cause to believe that respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation terminated petitioner’s employment and otherwise discriminated against her because of her disability, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William Davis, J.], entered October 4, 1996) dismissed, without costs.

The finding that petitioner’s termination two days after she started the job was not motivated by her disability but by her failure to inform the Workers’ Compensation Division of the New York City Law Department of her return to work is supported by substantial evidence, including the absence of any documentation that petitioner had so informed the Division, and the fact that petitioner was reinstated to the job once such documentation was provided. There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that respondent’s investigation was one-sided. We note that such a claim does not present a substantial evidence ques[246]*246tion that should be transferred to this Court (Bentkowsky v Tokio Re Corp., 139 AD2d 436). To the extent that Matter of Albert v Beth Israel Med. Ctr. (230 AD2d 695, 696) suggests otherwise, we decline to follow it. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Metz v. County of Suffolk
4 Misc. 3d 914 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 245, 668 N.Y.S.2d 601, 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1781, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1998.