Petitioner's appointment did not become permanent. While petitioner had not received specific notice prior to January 9, 1991 that his absences would not be considered time served during his probationary term, petitioner was advised that his continued service, under any circumstances, would be probationary. Accordingly, respondent was not estopped from timely extending petitioner's probationary period, pursuant to Civil Service Rules (4 NYCRR) § 4.5 (g). (See...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.