Minally v. Carey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minally v. Carey

34 A.D.3d 815, 825 N.Y.S.2d 133

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 815 (Minally v. Carey) 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

Minally v. Carey, 34 A.D.3d 815, 825 N.Y.S.2d 133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Joan B. Carey, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts, dated January 6, 2005, which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a senior court officer in the Unified Court System, Joan B. Carey appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated August 3, 2005, as granted that branch of the petition which was for a name-clearing hearing.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the petition which was for a name-clearing hearing is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The parties’ stipulations of settlement of a specification of misconduct provided that the petitioner was subject to random testing for controlled substances “the results of [which] shall be deemed conclusive upon the parties.” Pursuant to the terms of the stipulations, the petitioner was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing to challenge the results of a random test which was positive for a controlled substance (see Matter of Ramsey v City of New York, 8 AD3d 392 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Joan B. Carey, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts, dated January 6, 2005, which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a senior court officer in the Unified Court System, Joan B. Carey appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated August 3, 2005, as granted that branch of the petition which was for a name-clearing hearing.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the petition which was for a name-clearing hearing is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The parties’ stipulations of settlement of a specification of misconduct provided that the petitioner was subject to random testing for controlled substances “the results of [which] shall be deemed conclusive upon the parties.” Pursuant to the terms of the stipulations, the petitioner was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing to challenge the results of a random test which was positive for a controlled substance (see Matter of Ramsey v City of New York, 8 AD3d 392 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 815, 825 N.Y.S.2d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minally-v-carey-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack