King v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. City of New York

262 A.D.2d 233, 692 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7461

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

DecidedJune 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 233 (King 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

King v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 233, 692 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered January 9, 1998, which denied petitioner’s motion to renew her prior application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination discharging her from her position as a police officer in the New York City Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied renewal in the absence of an acceptable excuse for petitioner’s failure to produce the documents she would now rely upon when her application was first considered (see, Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 328-329, lv denied 88 NY2d 815). In any event, none of the belatedly produced material would warrant revision of the court’s determinative findings that petitioner had been discharged while she was still on probation and that she had not established that her dismissal was made in bad faith (see, Averys v Kelly, 214 AD2d 309, lv denied 86 NY2d 703; Matter of Brennan v Ward, 134 AD2d 194). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, 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 January 9, 1998, which denied petitioner’s motion to renew her prior application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination discharging her from her position as a police officer in the New York City Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied renewal in the absence of an acceptable excuse for petitioner’s failure to produce the documents she would now rely upon when her application was first considered (see, Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 328-329, lv denied 88 NY2d 815). In any event, none of the belatedly produced material would warrant revision of the court’s determinative findings that petitioner had been discharged while she was still on probation and that she had not established that her dismissal was made in bad faith (see, Averys v Kelly, 214 AD2d 309, lv denied 86 NY2d 703; Matter of Brennan v Ward, 134 AD2d 194). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 233, 692 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack