Silbert v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silbert v. Jackson

228 A.D.2d 198, 643 N.Y.2d 554, 643 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6386

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 198 (Silbert v. Jackson) 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

Silbert v. Jackson, 228 A.D.2d 198, 643 N.Y.2d 554, 643 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The decision to disqualify for appointment was neither arbitrary and capricious nor unlawfully discriminatory. Given medical opinion that petitioner’s particular condition placed him "most at risk”, that the condition would affect his performance. as well as increase the likelihood that he would eventu[199]*199ally become disabled, the determination had a rational basis (see, Matter of Palozzolo v Nadel, 83 AD2d 539, affd 55 NY2d 984; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 NY2d 100). Therefore, there was no violation of Executive Law § 296, or of the Federal Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

The decision to disqualify for appointment was neither arbitrary and capricious nor unlawfully discriminatory. Given medical opinion that petitioner’s particular condition placed him "most at risk”, that the condition would affect his performance. as well as increase the likelihood that he would eventu[199]*199ally become disabled, the determination had a rational basis (see, Matter of Palozzolo v Nadel, 83 AD2d 539, affd 55 NY2d 984; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 NY2d 100). Therefore, there was no violation of Executive Law § 296, or of the Federal Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 198, 643 N.Y.2d 554, 643 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silbert-v-jackson-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack