Rivers v. New York City Department of Sanitation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivers v. New York City Department of Sanitation

49 A.D.3d 436, 854 N.Y.2d 64

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 436 (Rivers v. New York City Department of Sanitation) 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

Rivers v. New York City Department of Sanitation, 49 A.D.3d 436, 854 N.Y.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not convert the cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action into a motion for summary judgment without notice. Rather, the court, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f), properly found that petitioner failed to state a legally cognizable cause of action that respondents acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without a rational basis, where the record evidence establishes that the determination finding petitioner medically not qualified for the position of sanitation worker was rationally based upon the findings that she suffered from left ventricular hypertrophy and had elevated blood pressure. When arriving at its determination, respondents were entitled to rely on the conclusions of respondent Department of Sanitation’s medical director even in the face of conflicting opinions from petitioner’s physicians (see McCabe v Hoberman, 33 AD2d 547 [1969]; Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk, 13 AD3d 382 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32740(U).]

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

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not convert the cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action into a motion for summary judgment without notice. Rather, the court, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f), properly found that petitioner failed to state a legally cognizable cause of action that respondents acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without a rational basis, where the record evidence establishes that the determination finding petitioner medically not qualified for the position of sanitation worker was rationally based upon the findings that she suffered from left ventricular hypertrophy and had elevated blood pressure. When arriving at its determination, respondents were entitled to rely on the conclusions of respondent Department of Sanitation’s medical director even in the face of conflicting opinions from petitioner’s physicians (see McCabe v Hoberman, 33 AD2d 547 [1969]; Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk, 13 AD3d 382 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32740(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 436, 854 N.Y.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-new-york-city-department-of-sanitation-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack