Lingard v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lingard v. Kerik

303 A.D.2d 286, 755 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2780

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 20, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 4, 2002, which denied and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated January 26, 2001, dismissing petitioner from respondent Police Department, and seeking back pay and consideration of petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly concluded that petitioner, who had been placed on dismissal probation, had been discharged because of her conduct, and not to prevent her from obtaining disability benefits (see Matter of Nelson v Abate, 205 AD2d 454, 455 [1994]; cf. Auerys v Kelly, 214 AD2d 309, 310 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 703 [1995]). While there had been delays in commencing the disciplinary process, detailed explanations for these delays offered by respondents provided ample basis for the court’s conclusion that the Department had not acted in bad faith. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 4, 2002, which denied and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated January 26, 2001, dismissing petitioner from respondent Police Department, and seeking back pay and consideration of petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly concluded that petitioner, who had been placed on dismissal probation, had been discharged because of her conduct, and not to prevent her from obtaining disability benefits (see Matter of Nelson v Abate, 205 AD2d 454, 455 [1994]; cf. Auerys v Kelly, 214 AD2d 309, 310 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 703 [1995]). While there had been delays in commencing the disciplinary process, detailed explanations for these delays offered by respondents provided ample basis for the court’s conclusion that the Department had not acted in bad faith. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

Lingard v. Kerik, 303 A.D.2d 286, 755 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 286 (Lingard v. Kerik) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related