Watts v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watts v. New York City Transit Authority

213 A.D.2d 253, 624 N.Y.S.2d 124

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 253 (Watts v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Watts v. New York City Transit Authority, 213 A.D.2d 253, 624 N.Y.S.2d 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), entered July 14, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging her termination by respondent The New York City Transit Authority under, inter alia, Executive Law § 296 et seq. and Civil Service Law § 75-b and rejected the report of Honorable [254]*254Frank Lewis dated June 30, 1992, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As petitioner’s claims are only supported by bald conclusory statements, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of either quid pro quo sexual harassment (Henson v City of Dundee, 682 F2d 897, 909 [11th Cir 1982]), or harassment based on the existence of a hostile work environment (Fair v Guiding Eyes for the Blind, 742 F Supp 151 ([SD NY 1990]). The record reflects that petitioner was terminated due to her excessive absences, her inability to get along with her subordinates and fellow managers and poor job performance. (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792). Hence, her termination was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We also note that the Referee’s report was based on incorrect evidentiary rulings regarding, inter alia, authentication of certain documents and exclusion of documents prepared in the ordinary course of business.

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rubin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, 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 (Clifford Scott, J.), entered July 14, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging her termination by respondent The New York City Transit Authority under, inter alia, Executive Law § 296 et seq. and Civil Service Law § 75-b and rejected the report of Honorable [254]*254Frank Lewis dated June 30, 1992, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As petitioner’s claims are only supported by bald conclusory statements, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of either quid pro quo sexual harassment (Henson v City of Dundee, 682 F2d 897, 909 [11th Cir 1982]), or harassment based on the existence of a hostile work environment (Fair v Guiding Eyes for the Blind, 742 F Supp 151 ([SD NY 1990]). The record reflects that petitioner was terminated due to her excessive absences, her inability to get along with her subordinates and fellow managers and poor job performance. (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792). Hence, her termination was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We also note that the Referee’s report was based on incorrect evidentiary rulings regarding, inter alia, authentication of certain documents and exclusion of documents prepared in the ordinary course of business.

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rubin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 253, 624 N.Y.S.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack