Nieves-Diaz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nieves-Diaz v. City of New York

37 A.D.3d 356, 830 N.Y.S.2d 535

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 356 (Nieves-Diaz 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

Nieves-Diaz v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 356, 830 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated August 27, 2004, dismissing petitioner from his position as a New York City police detective, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At the time the charges resulting in petitioner’s dismissal were brought, petitioner was on dismissal probation and, ac[357]*357cordingly, was subject to termination for any reason or for no reason, and without explanation, as long as the termination was not in bad faith or for an impermissible reason (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761 [1984]; Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 AD3d 320, 321 [2006]). Petitioner does not allege bad faith or an impermissible reason and respondents’ broad prerogative to terminate petitioner as a probationary employee was not limited by the circumstance that petitioner was afforded a pretermination hearing to which he was not entitled. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, 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 (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated August 27, 2004, dismissing petitioner from his position as a New York City police detective, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At the time the charges resulting in petitioner’s dismissal were brought, petitioner was on dismissal probation and, ac[357]*357cordingly, was subject to termination for any reason or for no reason, and without explanation, as long as the termination was not in bad faith or for an impermissible reason (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, 761 [1984]; Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 AD3d 320, 321 [2006]). Petitioner does not allege bad faith or an impermissible reason and respondents’ broad prerogative to terminate petitioner as a probationary employee was not limited by the circumstance that petitioner was afforded a pretermination hearing to which he was not entitled. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 356, 830 N.Y.S.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nieves-diaz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack