# Singleton v. Kerik

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · April 23, 2001 · 282 A.D.2d 682

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6070153

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Clay Singleton v. Bernard B. Kerik
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** April 23, 2001
- **Citations:** 282 A.D.2d 682; 723 N.Y.S.2d 695; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Schmidt
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6070153

## Opinion text

—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 established 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6070153. Public record. Not legal advice.