Presti v. Farrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Presti v. Farrell

23 A.D.3d 211, 806 N.Y.S.2d 5

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 211 (Presti v. Farrell) 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

Presti v. Farrell, 23 A.D.3d 211, 806 N.Y.S.2d 5 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered November 1, 2002, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s acceptance of petitioner’s advance resignation pursuant to a last chance agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After petitioner tested positive for drugs for a third time, respondent properly accepted petitioner’s resignation from his position as a sanitation worker pursuant to a last chance agreement that he had signed at a prior disciplinary proceeding, and that had provided for automatic resignation upon any subsequent positive test. In the agreement, petitioner, in lieu of termination, knowingly relinquished the right to appeal or otherwise challenge the test results or testing procedures (see Montiel v Kiley, 147 AD2d 402 [1989]). In any event, petitioner’s chain of custody argument concerning his drug test is without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered November 1, 2002, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s acceptance of petitioner’s advance resignation pursuant to a last chance agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After petitioner tested positive for drugs for a third time, respondent properly accepted petitioner’s resignation from his position as a sanitation worker pursuant to a last chance agreement that he had signed at a prior disciplinary proceeding, and that had provided for automatic resignation upon any subsequent positive test. In the agreement, petitioner, in lieu of termination, knowingly relinquished the right to appeal or otherwise challenge the test results or testing procedures (see Montiel v Kiley, 147 AD2d 402 [1989]). In any event, petitioner’s chain of custody argument concerning his drug test is without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 211, 806 N.Y.S.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/presti-v-farrell-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack