Johnson v. Conway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Conway

284 A.D.2d 110, 725 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5654

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

DecidedJune 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 110 (Johnson v. Conway) 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

Johnson v. Conway, 284 A.D.2d 110, 725 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about May 24, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ rejection of petitioner’s application for employment as a transit police officer, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents lawfully considered the record of petitioner’s traffic violations (Executive Law § 296 [15]; Correction Law § 750 [5]), and the circumstances underlying his record of arrests (Executive Law § 296 [16]; Public Authorities Law § 1266-h [1]), notwithstanding that he would have received youthful offender status had he been convicted (see, Matter of Bell v Codd, 57 AD2d 814, 815). Their determination, based in part thereon, and in part on the reservations expressed in writing of the two evaluators who had interviewed the petitioner, was rational (see, id., citing Matter of Cacchioli v Hoberman, 31 NY2d 287, 289 [Jasen, J., concurring]). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach 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 (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about May 24, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ rejection of petitioner’s application for employment as a transit police officer, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents lawfully considered the record of petitioner’s traffic violations (Executive Law § 296 [15]; Correction Law § 750 [5]), and the circumstances underlying his record of arrests (Executive Law § 296 [16]; Public Authorities Law § 1266-h [1]), notwithstanding that he would have received youthful offender status had he been convicted (see, Matter of Bell v Codd, 57 AD2d 814, 815). Their determination, based in part thereon, and in part on the reservations expressed in writing of the two evaluators who had interviewed the petitioner, was rational (see, id., citing Matter of Cacchioli v Hoberman, 31 NY2d 287, 289 [Jasen, J., concurring]). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 110, 725 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-conway-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack