Oberson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oberson v. City of New York

232 A.D.2d 172, 648 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9742

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 172 (Oberson 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

Oberson v. City of New York, 232 A.D.2d 172, 648 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about March 3, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant City of New York’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order of the same court and Justice, entered August 3, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to plaintiffs Civil Service Law § 75-b claim, we agree with the motion court that, as a matter of law, there was no indication that plaintiffs dismissal resulted from his "whistle-blowing” activities (see, Ioele v Alden Press, 145 AD2d 29, 34). The lack of temporal coincidence between the protected acts of submitting health and safety complaints (Civil Service Law § 75-b [2] [a]) and the suspension and firing of plaintiff following his stabbing of his supervisor demonstrates that a retaliatory purpose was not involved (see, Mesnick v General Elec. Co., 950 F2d 816, 828, cert denied 504 US 985). The fact that plaintiff eventually was acquitted on criminal charges stem[173]*173ming from the altercation does not establish that the discharge was in bad faith (see, Matter of Brown v Condon, 186 AD2d 43). Moreover, plaintiff, a provisional employee, had a history of negative work performance ratings.

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about March 3, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant City of New York’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order of the same court and Justice, entered August 3, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to plaintiffs Civil Service Law § 75-b claim, we agree with the motion court that, as a matter of law, there was no indication that plaintiffs dismissal resulted from his "whistle-blowing” activities (see, Ioele v Alden Press, 145 AD2d 29, 34). The lack of temporal coincidence between the protected acts of submitting health and safety complaints (Civil Service Law § 75-b [2] [a]) and the suspension and firing of plaintiff following his stabbing of his supervisor demonstrates that a retaliatory purpose was not involved (see, Mesnick v General Elec. Co., 950 F2d 816, 828, cert denied 504 US 985). The fact that plaintiff eventually was acquitted on criminal charges stem[173]*173ming from the altercation does not establish that the discharge was in bad faith (see, Matter of Brown v Condon, 186 AD2d 43). Moreover, plaintiff, a provisional employee, had a history of negative work performance ratings.

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 172, 648 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oberson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack