Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JESSICA WALKER, Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Appellant–Respondent.
Muriel Goode–Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hannah J. Sarokin of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Kreisberg Maitland Mendelberg & O'Hearn, LLP, New York (Jeffrey L. Kreisberg of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered September 17, 2024, granting in part the petition to annul a determination of the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), effective November 6, 2023, which terminated petitioner's employment, and reinstating petitioner, but denying petitioner's request for backpay, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition, dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner, who served in a non-competitive title for DOC since January 17, 2023, was terminated without notice or a hearing effective November 6, 2023. The parties dispute whether petitioner had completed her probationary period by the date of her discharge. We need not resolve that dispute because, even if petitioner had completed her probationary period, she would not have been entitled to a pretermination hearing under the Civil Service Law, which affords tenure protections to employees serving in non-competitive titles only once they have “completed at least five years of continuous service” (Civil Service Law § 75[1][c]; see Genesky v Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, CSEA, 287 A.D.2d 594, 595 [2d Dept 2001]; Matter of Voorhis v Warwick Val. Cent. School Dist., 92 A.D.2d 571, 572 [2d Dept 1983] ).
Because petitioner was not discharged in violation of the Civil Service Law, there is no basis to order her reinstated with backpay (see Civil Service Law § 77).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Index No. 161986 /23
Decided: March 19, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)