Legal Opinion
Ricketts v. New York City Health
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 25, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Substantial evidence, including the parties’ stipulation and the testimony of petitioner’s supervisor, supports HHC’s deter-*594urination that petitioner engaged in misconduct consisting of excessive absences, absence without official leave (AWOL), and failure to follow HHC’s call-in policy (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).
We decline to review petitioner’s argument that the determination violated the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1] [a]), since he never raised it before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (see Matter of Colton v…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Berenhaus v. WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- MATTER OF MCENIRY v. LandiNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Colton v. RiccobonoNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Moorehead v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Quirolo v. IsraelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Quirolo v. IsraelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Tanvir v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Tanvir v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013