New York Court of Appeals, 1987

Perez v. Ward

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 17, 1987

69 N.Y.2d 840; 507 N.E.2d 296; 514 N.Y.S.2d 703; 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15892

Cases that cite this one

29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Feliciano v. City of Cleveland (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1987)
McKenzie v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Fiorenza v. Gunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Matter of Mamatkulov v. CUNY, the City Univ. of N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Asaro v. Kerik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Wilson v. City of White Plains (N.Y. 2000)
Partland v. Bratton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Hoffman v. Village of Sidney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Brinson v. Safir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Keys v. Schembri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Canty v. Spooner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Vega v. Coughlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Seelig v. McMickens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Blanco v. Popolizio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Silva v. Sielaff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Jimenez v. Popolizio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Robinson v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
James v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Braxton v. Koehler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Taylor v. Raiford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Seelig v. Koehler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Wilder v. Koehler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Stabner v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
McCullon v. Meehan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Seelig v. Koehler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The determinations of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In these article 78 proceedings, the dismissal of police and correction officers was upheld for their refusal to comply with orders to submit to urinalysis in connection with reported drug use. There is no dispute among the parties as to the standard that governs these cases, and therefore this court need not and does not pass on it: these parties have agreed that a public agency may lawfully order an employee to *842undergo urinalysis on reasonable suspicion of drug use. The central issue is whether, on the facts presented, that standard was satisfied here. We conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the administrative determinations. As to petitioner Perez, a longtime registered confidential informant —who had repeatedly proven reliable in the past — informed several members of the police department that he had seen petitioner using heroin, and certain of his allegations were verified; on the day prior to the order to submit to urinalysis, the informant reported that he had just seen petitioner using heroin. As to petitioners Melvin and Henry King, again there was a report from a confidential informant regarding use of illegal drugs by them at specified locations; the Inspector General’s office verified certain of the information; and just prior to the urinalysis order the informant advised the Inspector General that he had observed the officers using narcotics at the specified locations.

The penalty of dismissal in these circumstances was not erroneous (see, Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack any merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

In Matter of Perez v Ward: Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

In Matter of King v McMickens: Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.