Opinion
16394 Index No. 810947/21E Case No. 2022-01061
10-11-2022
In the Matter of Athanasios PAPADAS, Petitioner–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for appellants. Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, Melville (Matthew Weinick of counsel), for respondent.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for appellants.
Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, Melville (Matthew Weinick of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered February 28, 2022, granting the petition to annul the determination of New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), dated July 19, 2021, to rescind petitioner's appointment to the residency program at respondent Jacobi Medical Center, reinstating petitioner to the residency program, and awarding him back pay and attorney's fees, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed, without costs.
HHC, which operates respondent Jacobi Medical Center, acted rationally in rescinding petitioner's appointment to the residency program at Jacobi after his initial drug screening was positive for opiates (see e.g. Matter of O'Neill v. City of New York, 52 A.D.3d 258, 859 N.Y.S.2d 183 [1st Dept. 2008] ). Petitioner's assertion that his positive drug test was the result of eating seeded breads does not require annulment of HHC's determination (see e.g. Matter of White v. New York State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 277 A.D.2d 608, 610, 715 N.Y.S.2d 116 [3d Dept. 2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 716, 730 N.Y.S.2d 32, 754 N.E.2d 1115 [2001] ). Respondent had a rational basis for rejecting this explanation. Petitioner's contentions regarding the chain of custody procedure are also unavailing, as the transcription errors presented are minor and, in any event, the control numbers on the positive drug test report and the chain of custody form match (see e.g. Matter of Brinson v. Safir, 255 A.D.2d 247, 680 N.Y.S.2d 500 [1st Dept. 1998], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 805, 689 N.Y.S.2d 707, 711 N.E.2d 983 [1999] ; see also Matter of Samuel v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 584, 585, 715 N.Y.S.2d 113 [3d Dept. 2000] ). Moreover, respondents’ interpretation of its own chain of custody procedure must be afforded judicial deference (see Matter of Leggio v. Devine, 34 N.Y.3d 448, 460, 121 N.Y.S.3d 206, 143 N.E.3d 1084 [2020] ). Respondent was not required to conduct additional testing.
HHC's decision to terminate petitioner's employment based on the positive drug test does not shock the conscience (see Matter of O'Neill, 52 A.D.3d 258, 859 N.Y.S.2d 183 ).