Singleton v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singleton v. Kerik

282 A.D.2d 682, 723 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 682 (Singleton v. Kerik) 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

Singleton v. Kerik, 282 A.D.2d 682, 723 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction dated July 12, 1999, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a probationary correction officer, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), entered May 4, 2000, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the appellants to reinstate the petitioner with back pay and benefits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner’s termination for pre-rehabilitation alcohol-related absenteeism violated the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1]; Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554). The petitioner [683]*683established that he was dismissed for misconduct caused by his alcoholism and that he performed his job in a satisfactory manner after his discharge from a rehabilitation program. The respondents failed to sustain their burden of establishing that the petitioner’s alcoholism rendered him incapable of performing his job at the time of his termination (see, Matter of McEniry v Landi, supra, at 560; Kroboth v Sexton, 160 AD2d 126; cf., Matter of Wolfe v Jurczynski, 241 AD2d 88; Matter of Myszczenko v City of Poughkeepsie, 239 AD2d 584). Santucci, J. P., Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction dated July 12, 1999, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a probationary correction officer, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), entered May 4, 2000, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the appellants to reinstate the petitioner with back pay and benefits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner’s termination for pre-rehabilitation alcohol-related absenteeism violated the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1]; Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554). The petitioner [683]*683established that he was dismissed for misconduct caused by his alcoholism and that he performed his job in a satisfactory manner after his discharge from a rehabilitation program. The respondents failed to sustain their burden of establishing that the petitioner’s alcoholism rendered him incapable of performing his job at the time of his termination (see, Matter of McEniry v Landi, supra, at 560; Kroboth v Sexton, 160 AD2d 126; cf., Matter of Wolfe v Jurczynski, 241 AD2d 88; Matter of Myszczenko v City of Poughkeepsie, 239 AD2d 584). Santucci, J. P., Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 682, 723 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack