Matter of Woods v. Garcia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Woods v. Garcia

2017 NY Slip Op 1477, 147 A.D.3d 665, 46 N.Y.S.3d 889

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2017

Docket3214 100402/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1477 (Matter of Woods v. Garcia) 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

Matter of Woods v. Garcia, 2017 NY Slip Op 1477, 147 A.D.3d 665, 46 N.Y.S.3d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered October 13, 2015, inter alia, denying the petition to annul respondent Sanitation Department’s determination, dated January 23, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s employment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination terminating petitioner’s employment was rational and not affected by an error of law (see Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008]).

The record substantiates the special referee’s findings that the field supervisor and garage supervisor on duty on the date of the incident communicated to petitioner an order to submit to substance abuse testing and that petitioner disregarded that order (see Andersen v Weinroth, 48 AD3d 121, 133 [1st Dept 2007]; Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727 [1st Dept 1982]).

Petitioner’s contention that the field supervisor violated departmental procedure governing paperwork is not supported by the record. In any event, such a violation would not affect the dispositive issue, which is whether respondent disregarded a substance use testing order (see generally People v Middleton, 36 AD3d 941 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 948 [2007]). That issue, as well as the credibility issue presented by the conflict between the garage supervisor’s testimony that he told petitioner to go upstairs to be drug tested and his earlier handwritten, notarized statement that there was a “good chance” that petitioner did not hear the order in the noisy garage, was resolved by the referee against petitioner on the basis of credibility determinations that are entitled to great weight (see McFadden v Bruno, 37 AD3d 177, 177 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, 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 (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered October 13, 2015, inter alia, denying the petition to annul respondent Sanitation Department’s determination, dated January 23, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s employment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination terminating petitioner’s employment was rational and not affected by an error of law (see Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008]).

The record substantiates the special referee’s findings that the field supervisor and garage supervisor on duty on the date of the incident communicated to petitioner an order to submit to substance abuse testing and that petitioner disregarded that order (see Andersen v Weinroth, 48 AD3d 121, 133 [1st Dept 2007]; Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727 [1st Dept 1982]).

Petitioner’s contention that the field supervisor violated departmental procedure governing paperwork is not supported by the record. In any event, such a violation would not affect the dispositive issue, which is whether respondent disregarded a substance use testing order (see generally People v Middleton, 36 AD3d 941 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 948 [2007]). That issue, as well as the credibility issue presented by the conflict between the garage supervisor’s testimony that he told petitioner to go upstairs to be drug tested and his earlier handwritten, notarized statement that there was a “good chance” that petitioner did not hear the order in the noisy garage, was resolved by the referee against petitioner on the basis of credibility determinations that are entitled to great weight (see McFadden v Bruno, 37 AD3d 177, 177 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1477, 147 A.D.3d 665, 46 N.Y.S.3d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-woods-v-garcia-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack