Rivera v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Safir

269 A.D.2d 257, 702 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1556

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 257 (Rivera v. Safir) 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

Rivera v. Safir, 269 A.D.2d 257, 702 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered June 23, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul his termination as a probationary police officer with the New York City Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s contention that, pursuant to McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 891 (L 1940, ch 834), he was entitled to a pretermination hearing notwithstanding his probationary status has recently been rejected by this Court (see, Matter of Williams v Safir, 265 AD2d 182, lv denied 94 NY2d 758), and the present matter affords no reason to reach a different result. [258]*258Concur — Tom, J. P., Rubin, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered June 23, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul his termination as a probationary police officer with the New York City Police Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s contention that, pursuant to McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 891 (L 1940, ch 834), he was entitled to a pretermination hearing notwithstanding his probationary status has recently been rejected by this Court (see, Matter of Williams v Safir, 265 AD2d 182, lv denied 94 NY2d 758), and the present matter affords no reason to reach a different result. [258]*258Concur — Tom, J. P., Rubin, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 257, 702 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-safir-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack