Wallick v. Barrios-Paoli

248 A.D.2d 332, 670 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3362
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 332 (Wallick v. Barrios-Paoli) 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
Wallick v. Barrios-Paoli, 248 A.D.2d 332, 670 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered January 27, 1997, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination terminating petitioner from her employment at the City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s assertions that she was impermissibly terminated from her employment by reason of her disability are wholly unsupported, and are particularly undermined by the circumstance that she was promoted and accommodated with a transfer she requested subsequent to the onset of her disability (see, Matter of Simpson v Abate, 213 AD2d 190, 191).

Nor was petitioner terminated solely by reason of her first [333]*333arrest, which would not have been proper since that arrest did not result in prosecution (see, Executive Law § 296 [16]). Petitioner’s termination was rather premised upon and justified by the disruptiveness to the workplace of petitioner’s repeated arrests at the office and petitioner’s activities in contravention of several provisions of the New York City Code of Conduct.

Finally, since there is no evidence in the record that respondents publicly disseminated stigmatizing statements regarding petitioner’s termination, she is not entitled to a name-clearing hearing (see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan, 61 NY2d 874, 875).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Annabi v. Cassino
269 A.D.2d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 332, 670 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallick-v-barrios-paoli-nyappdiv-1998.