New York Court of Appeals, 1990

McKenzie v. Jackson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 8, 1990

75 N.Y.2d 995; 556 N.E.2d 1072; 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 574; 557 N.Y.S.2d 265; 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1039

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Claudio v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
O'CONNOR v. Police Commissioner of Boston (Mass. 1990)
Jennings v. Leon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Brown v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Meyers v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Smith v. Abate (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Delaraba v. Nassau County Police Department (N.Y. 1994)
Delaraba v. Nassau County Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Seelig v. Koehler (N.Y. 1990)
Gdanski v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)

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 order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner was dismissed from his position as a probationary correction officer by respondent Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Correction, after testing positive for cannibis in a random urinalysis test conducted in the seventh month of his 12-month period of probation. The test was mandated by the Department’s policy of requiring probationary correction officers periodically to produce urine sam*996pies to be analyzed for evidence of illegal drug use. Petitioner was aware of this policy when he accepted the position. We have today concluded in Matter of Seelig v Koehler (76 NY2d 87 [decided today]) that the random urinalysis testing of tenured correction officers of the New York City Department of Correction, without reasonable suspicion and under circumstances and procedures nearly identical to those employed in this case, comports with the exception articulated in Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. (70 NY2d 57) and is therefore constitutionally permissible (see also, Matter of Caruso v Ward, 72 NY2d 432). No different result is warranted here.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.