Court Opinion

ID: 9788228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:32:51.965461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:06.166705
License: Public Domain

Gabrielli, J.
(concurring). I vote to affirm the order of the Appellate Division, but on the ground that petitioner was not given a "different assignment” within the fair intendment of rule 4.5 (subd [a], par [3]) of the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Civil Service (4 NYCRR 4.5 [a] [3]). During her second probationary term, and what is now claimed to constitute a "different assignment”, petitioner was assigned to another shift. Nonetheless, she continued to work in the same building, under the same head nurse-building supervisor, and in a position with identical duties and responsibilities. In addition, the letter informing petitioner of the second probationary period did not advise her that she was being given a new assignment nor does any evidence in the record indicate *182that respondent intended the shift change to be a "different assignment”. In these circumstances, petitioner was neither offered nor did she work in a "different assignment” as required by Civil Service Department Rules and Regulations (4 NYCRR 4.5 [a] [3]).
Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur with Chief Judge Breitel; Judge Gabrielli concurs in a separate opinion.
Order affirmed.