Roberts v. Sielaff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Sielaff

202 A.D.2d 179, 610 N.Y.S.2d 764

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 179 (Roberts v. Sielaff) 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

Roberts v. Sielaff, 202 A.D.2d 179, 610 N.Y.S.2d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered on or about December 7, 1992, which, following a full evidentiary hearing, granted the CPLR article 78 petition to the extent of directing the Department of Correction to reinstate petitioner to her former position as a probationary correction officer with credit for time served and with all rights and entitlements of a probationer and denying back pay, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the fact that respondent’s determination to [180]*180terminate petitioner was not factually supported by the testimony of respondent’s witnesses or petitioner’s internal investigations, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that petitioner’s termination was arbitrary, capricious and made in bad faith (cf., Matter of Garrison v Koehler, 161 AD2d 322). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered on or about December 7, 1992, which, following a full evidentiary hearing, granted the CPLR article 78 petition to the extent of directing the Department of Correction to reinstate petitioner to her former position as a probationary correction officer with credit for time served and with all rights and entitlements of a probationer and denying back pay, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the fact that respondent’s determination to [180]*180terminate petitioner was not factually supported by the testimony of respondent’s witnesses or petitioner’s internal investigations, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that petitioner’s termination was arbitrary, capricious and made in bad faith (cf., Matter of Garrison v Koehler, 161 AD2d 322). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 179, 610 N.Y.S.2d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-sielaff-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack