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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1999·Published

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.

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

262 A.D.2d 233 (King v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related