Jones v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 2017-06870

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation178 A.D.3d 826,115 N.Y.S.3d 95
Decision Date11 December 2019
Parties In the Matter of Rawl A. JONES, respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, appellant.
Docket Number2017-06870,Index No. 3234/16

178 A.D.3d 826
115 N.Y.S.3d 95

In the Matter of Rawl A. JONES, respondent,
v.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, appellant.

2017-06870
Index No. 3234/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued - June 18, 2019
December 11, 2019


David I. Farber, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Kristen M. Nolan of counsel), for appellant.

Leighton M. Jackson, New York, NY, for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

115 N.Y.S.3d 97

DECISION & ORDER

178 A.D.3d 827

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

On September 28, 2015, the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter NYCTA) hired the petitioner as a conductor from the open competitive civil service list, subject to a probationary period of employment. The petitioner failed both a final examination on November 17, 2015, and a "retest" on November 18, 2015. After the petitioner failed those exams and was notified that his probationary employment was subject to termination, he submitted to the NYCTA an "Application for Leave of Absence Due to Illness," which contained a physician's certification signed on November 18, 2015, stating that the petitioner suffered from a "cough, headache, runny nose, [and] upper respiratory infection" from November 17, 2015, to November 18, 2015, and could return to work on November 19, 2015. In a letter dated November 25, 2015, the petitioner requested that the NYCTA grant him a third opportunity to retake the final examination, indicating that he "would have passed it if [he] was not sick." He also indicated that on the date of the retest, he had asked to use the bathroom "about five minutes after the test began but permission was refused."

By letter dated November 25, 2015, the NYCTA notified the petitioner that his employment was terminated effective November 26, 2015, "due to an unsatisfactory probationary period." The petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against the NYCTA to annul that determination and reinstate his probationary employment. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the petition, in effect, annulled the determination, and directed the NYCTA to reinstate the petitioner's probationary employment as a conductor. The NYCTA appeals.

" ‘The employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Lake v. Town of Southold, 2017–11383
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 30, 2020
    ...Mendez v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 N.Y.3d 993, 994, 41 N.Y.S.3d 208, 63 N.E.3d 1152 ; Matter of Jones v. New York City Tr. Auth., 178 A.D.3d 826, 828, 115 N.Y.S.3d 95 ). Where, upon searching the record, the parties' submissions permit the resolution of this issue as a matter of law......
  • Hines v. Baptiste, 2018-06937
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 11, 2019
    ...from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene Katz, J.), dated January 23, 2018. The order denied his motion pursuant to 178 A.D.3d 826 CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate an order of protection that was entered against him, after an inquest, upon his default in appearing at a continu......
2 cases
  • Lake v. Town of Southold, 2017–11383
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 30, 2020
    ...Mendez v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 N.Y.3d 993, 994, 41 N.Y.S.3d 208, 63 N.E.3d 1152 ; Matter of Jones v. New York City Tr. Auth., 178 A.D.3d 826, 828, 115 N.Y.S.3d 95 ). Where, upon searching the record, the parties' submissions permit the resolution of this issue as a matter of law......
  • Hines v. Baptiste, 2018-06937
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 11, 2019
    ...from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Arlene Katz, J.), dated January 23, 2018. The order denied his motion pursuant to 178 A.D.3d 826 CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate an order of protection that was entered against him, after an inquest, upon his default in appearing at a continu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT