Kane v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kane v. Kerik

18 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5191

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

DecidedMay 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 282 (Kane v. Kerik) 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

Kane v. Kerik, 18 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[283]*283Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered May 3, 2004, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Commissioner’s determination to terminate petitioner’s employment as a police officer summarily, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly adopted the Special Referee’s report and recommendation, rendered after a hearing, which credited respondents’ testimony and other evidence, and found that petitioner had failed to produce any evidence beyond his own self-serving testimony and self-created memo book. Since petitioner had not completed the one-year probationary period he had agreed to for prior infractions, he was still a probationary employee, subject to summary dismissal without a pretermination hearing (Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-115 [d]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Wilson v Bratton, 266 AD2d 140, 141-142 [1999]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

[283]*283Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered May 3, 2004, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Commissioner’s determination to terminate petitioner’s employment as a police officer summarily, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly adopted the Special Referee’s report and recommendation, rendered after a hearing, which credited respondents’ testimony and other evidence, and found that petitioner had failed to produce any evidence beyond his own self-serving testimony and self-created memo book. Since petitioner had not completed the one-year probationary period he had agreed to for prior infractions, he was still a probationary employee, subject to summary dismissal without a pretermination hearing (Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-115 [d]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]; Matter of Wilson v Bratton, 266 AD2d 140, 141-142 [1999]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack