Matter of Jian Hua Tan v New York City Tr. Auth.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Jian Hua Tan v New York City Tr. Auth. 2013 NY Slip Op 02689 Decided on April 23, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 23, 2013
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
9864 112072/11

[*1]In re Jian Hua Tan, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Transit Authority, Respondent-Respondent.




Christopher Chen, Flushing, for appellant.
Martin B. Schnabel, Brooklyn (Mariel A. Thompson of
counsel), for
respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered April 20, 2012, denying the petition to annul a determination of nonparty New York State Division of Human Rights, dated August 24, 2011, which denied petitioner's complaint of disability discrimination by nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority in terminating his employment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that there was no probable cause to believe that petitioner was subjected to disability-based discrimination was rationally based (see Matter of Pajooh v State Div. of Human Rights, 82 AD3d 609 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Allen v Division of Human Rights, 82 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2011]). Indeed, the record demonstrates that petitioner falsified his time sheets to show that he was working during times when he was absent from the office (see e.g. Costello v St. Francis Hosp., 258 F Supp 2d 144, 155 [ED NY 2003] ["(a)n employee's falsification of a time sheet can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating an employee"]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 23, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.