Oberson v. City of New York, 232 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). · Go Syfert
Oberson v. City of New York, 232 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Cited for
648 N.Y.S.2d at 14 concluding plaintiff’s Section 75-b claim fails as a matter of law because of a “lack of temporal coincidence” and because supervisor had independent basis for dismissal1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Morales v. City of New York, No. 1:18-cv-01573 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021).
    (concluding plaintiff’s Section 75-b claim fails as a matter of law because of a “lack of temporal coincidence” and because supervisor had independent basis for dismissal)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James K. Oberson
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 1, 1996.
Published opinion
232 A.D.2d 172
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9742
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about March 3, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant City of New York’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order of the same court and Justice, entered August 3, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to plaintiffs Civil Service Law § 75-b claim, we agree with the motion court that, as a matter of law, there was no indication that plaintiffs dismissal resulted from his "whistle-blowing” activities (see, Ioele v Alden Press, 145 AD2d 29, 34). The lack of temporal coincidence between the protected acts of submitting health and safety complaints (Civil Service Law § 75-b [2] [a]) and the suspension and firing of plaintiff following his stabbing of his supervisor demonstrates that a retaliatory purpose was not involved (see, Mesnick v General Elec. Co., 950 F2d 816, 828, cert denied 504 US 985). The fact that plaintiff eventually was acquitted on criminal charges stem[*173] ming from the altercation does not establish that the discharge was in bad faith (see, Matter of Brown v Condon, 186 AD2d 43). Moreover, plaintiff, a provisional employee, had a history of negative work performance ratings.

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.