N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Civil Service / ARTICLE Personnel Changes / TITLE Transfers: Reinstatements
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Service Law § 73 (2026)

Separation for ordinary disability; reinstatement

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 73. Separation for ordinary disability; reinstatement. When an
employee has been continuously absent from and unable to perform the
duties of his position for one year or more by reason of a disability,
other than a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease as
defined in the workmen's compensation law, his employment status may be
terminated and his position may be filled by a permanent appointment.
Such employee may, within one year after the termination of such
disability, make application to the civil service department or
municipal commission having jurisdiction over the position last held by
such employee for a medical examination to be conducted by a medical
officer selected for that purpose by such department or commission.  If,
upon such medical examination, such medical officer shall certify that
such person is physically and mentally fit to perform the duties of his
former position, he shall be reinstated to his former position, if
vacant, or to a vacancy in a similar position or a position in a lower
grade in the same occupational field in his former department or agency.
If no appropriate vacancy shall exist to which such reinstatement may be
made, or if the work load does not warrant the filling of such vacancy,
the name of such person shall be placed on a preferred list for his
former position in his former department or agency, and he shall be
eligible for reinstatement in his former department or agency from such
preferred list for a period of four years. In the event that such person
is reinstated to a position in a grade lower than that of his former
position, his name shall be placed on the preferred eligible list for
his former position or any similar position in his former department or
agency. This section shall not be deemed to modify or supersede any
other provisions of law applicable to the re-employment of persons
retired from the public service on account of disability.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Med. Univ., 243 F. Supp. 3d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Med. Univ., 243 F. Supp. 3d 255 (N.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 4× “) On August 26, 2015, Upstate sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that it intended to terminate his employment on September 23, 2015, -because he was continuously absent and unable to perform his work duties in accordance with Civil Service Law § 73. Id. The letter described…”
Gaines v. New York State Div. for Youth, 213 A.D.2d 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1995). · cites it 5× “Petitioner began a nonoccupational disability leave, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73, on July 3, 1990. *895 Respondent Gary J.”
Hurwitz v. Perales, 613 N.E.2d 163 (N.Y. 1993). · cites it 3× “In Matter of Prue v Hunt ( 78 NY2d 364 ), we held that in the context of termination from civil service employment under Civil Service Law § 73, due process requires notice and "some opportunity to respond” (id.”
Allen v. Howe, 645 N.E.2d 720 (N.Y. 1994). · cites it 2× “Petitioner Allen additionally alleges that her termination resulted in a denial of equal protection in that a similarly situated employee suffering from an ordinary, nonoccupational injury is subject to termination under Civil Service Law § 73 2 only after a continuous one-year…”
Allen v. Howe, 194 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1993). · cites it 4× “Facially, Civil Service Law § 73 *4 appears to require a more stringent criteria, i.e., absence on consecutive days for one year before termination is permitted, whereas Civil Service Law § 71 and the implementing regulations (4 NYCRR 21.”
Coleman v. State, 38 A.D.3d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007). · cites it 3× “When her absence exceeded one year, respondent informed her that as of February 17, 2004, she would be terminated pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She was, however, permitted to apply for reinstatement within one year.”
Sheeran v. New York State Dep't of Transp., 68 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009). · cites it 3× “Respondents thereafter notified petitioner that his employment would be terminated as of February 22, 2008 based on his continuous absence from work for one year (see Civil Service Law § 73). Petitioner requested and received a pretermination hearing pursuant to Civil Service…”
Sheeran v. Dep't of Transp., 958 N.E.2d 1197 (N.Y. 2011). · cites it 2× “Petitioners were eventually terminated from employment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73, which permits an employer to terminate employment when the employee is continuously absent from work for one year and unable to perform the duties of the position.”
Prue v. Hunt, 581 N.E.2d 1052 (N.Y. 1991). “Civil Service Law § 73 provides in pertinent part: “When an employee has been continuously absent from and unable to perform the duties of his position for one year or more by reason of a disability * * * his employment status may be terminated and his position may be filled by…”
Allen v. New York City Dep't of Env't Prot., 51 F. Supp. 3d 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “) Plaintiff challenged this termination in New York state court and, on May 2, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York found that Plaintiff had been “improperly terminated under Civil Service Law § 73, because his absences were due to a disability resulting from an…”
Mitchell v. Essex Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 14 A.D.3d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005). · cites it 3× “While petitioner’s appeal in that proceeding was pending before this Court, he commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel respondents to comply with Civil Service Law § 73 by providing him with a medical examination to determine whether he is fit to…”
Matter of Burke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 189 A.D.3d 1987 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020). · cites it 2× “In January 2015, the employer sent claimant a letter notifying him of its intent to terminate his employment, effective April 18, 2015, due to his "absen[ce] and/or [inability] to perform the duties of [his] position due to a non-service connected illness/injury since [April 18,…”
Show all 39 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.