Santiago v. Horn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Horn

37 A.D.3d 307, 830 N.Y.S.2d 119

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 307 (Santiago v. Horn) 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

Santiago v. Horn, 37 A.D.3d 307, 830 N.Y.S.2d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered September 6, 2005, which granted the respondents’ cross motion to dismiss this proceeding, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 24, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, denied petitioner’s motion to renew the earlier disposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, who was on probation for prior misconduct, failed to sustain his burden of establishing by competent evidence that his termination as a correction officer was in bad faith or for illegal reasons (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763 [1999]). Indeed, his lateness and absenteeism, both of which were admitted in his petition, provided a proper basis for dismissal of the proceeding (Matter of Nelson v Abate, 205 AD2d 454 [1994]). Furthermore, the rule cited in petitioner’s renewal motion does not require respondent to wait until completion of the initial probationary term before dismissing a probationary employee. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, 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 (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered September 6, 2005, which granted the respondents’ cross motion to dismiss this proceeding, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 24, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, denied petitioner’s motion to renew the earlier disposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, who was on probation for prior misconduct, failed to sustain his burden of establishing by competent evidence that his termination as a correction officer was in bad faith or for illegal reasons (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763 [1999]). Indeed, his lateness and absenteeism, both of which were admitted in his petition, provided a proper basis for dismissal of the proceeding (Matter of Nelson v Abate, 205 AD2d 454 [1994]). Furthermore, the rule cited in petitioner’s renewal motion does not require respondent to wait until completion of the initial probationary term before dismissing a probationary employee. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 307, 830 N.Y.S.2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-horn-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack