Nixon v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nixon v. City of New York

262 A.D.2d 162, 693 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6800

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 162 (Nixon 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

Nixon v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 162, 693 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme [163]*163Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered April 22, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary police officer, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No material issues of fact as to whether respondents terminated petitioner in bad faith are raised by petitioner’s disputed assertions that the positive hair sample drug test, assertedly the basis for the termination, is inherently unreliable and was further tainted in this instance by a failure to follow standard procedures (see, Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). In any event, even if an issue of bad faith were raised by petitioner’s allegation that unsanitized hair clippers were used to take his hair sample, there is no rebuttal of respondents’ expert evidence that it would be virtually scientifically impossible to create the confirmed and reconfirmed result reached here by accidentally mixing another person’s hair into petitioner’s sample. We have considered petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme [163]*163Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered April 22, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment as a probationary police officer, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No material issues of fact as to whether respondents terminated petitioner in bad faith are raised by petitioner’s disputed assertions that the positive hair sample drug test, assertedly the basis for the termination, is inherently unreliable and was further tainted in this instance by a failure to follow standard procedures (see, Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). In any event, even if an issue of bad faith were raised by petitioner’s allegation that unsanitized hair clippers were used to take his hair sample, there is no rebuttal of respondents’ expert evidence that it would be virtually scientifically impossible to create the confirmed and reconfirmed result reached here by accidentally mixing another person’s hair into petitioner’s sample. We have considered petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 162, 693 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack