Ortiz v. Manhattan Psychiatric Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Manhattan Psychiatric Center

27 A.D.3d 310, 811 N.Y.S.2d 390

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 310 (Ortiz v. Manhattan Psychiatric Center) 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

Ortiz v. Manhattan Psychiatric Center, 27 A.D.3d 310, 811 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered January 13, 2005, which denied the petition to annul respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents properly extended petitioner’s probationary period to reflect his absences (see 4 NYCRR 4.5 [g]; Matter of Reis v New York State Hous. Fin. Agency, 74 NY2d 724 [1989]; Matter of Beck v Walker, 286 AD2d 996, 997 [2001]). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, 4 NYCRR 4.5 (g) is applicable to disciplinary probations (see Matter of Murray v New York State Dept. of Mental Health, 151 AD2d 763 [1989]). The Umpire’s determination placing petitioner on disciplinary probation for a period of one year did not preclude respondents from extending the probationary period pursuant to 4 NYCRR 4.5 (g) to reflect petitioner’s absences. Fetitioner was thus a probationary employee at the time of his termination. In view of the record showing that petitioner violated the terms of his probation by accruing more than six unscheduled absences during the probationary period, he is unable to demonstrate that his dismissal was in bad faith (see Matter of Jones v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 5 AD3d 338 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered January 13, 2005, which denied the petition to annul respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents properly extended petitioner’s probationary period to reflect his absences (see 4 NYCRR 4.5 [g]; Matter of Reis v New York State Hous. Fin. Agency, 74 NY2d 724 [1989]; Matter of Beck v Walker, 286 AD2d 996, 997 [2001]). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, 4 NYCRR 4.5 (g) is applicable to disciplinary probations (see Matter of Murray v New York State Dept. of Mental Health, 151 AD2d 763 [1989]). The Umpire’s determination placing petitioner on disciplinary probation for a period of one year did not preclude respondents from extending the probationary period pursuant to 4 NYCRR 4.5 (g) to reflect petitioner’s absences. Fetitioner was thus a probationary employee at the time of his termination. In view of the record showing that petitioner violated the terms of his probation by accruing more than six unscheduled absences during the probationary period, he is unable to demonstrate that his dismissal was in bad faith (see Matter of Jones v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 5 AD3d 338 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 310, 811 N.Y.S.2d 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-manhattan-psychiatric-center-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack