The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER). DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, it is In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner Jay Logan (Logan) seeks a judgment to overturn an order of the respondent New York City Department of Correction (DOC) as arbitrary and capricious (motion sequence number 001). For the following reasons, this petition is denied. FACTS Logan was appointed as a corrections officer by DOC on June 19, 2017 subject to a two-year probationary period. See verified petition, 7. That period would normally have ended on June 18, 2019. However, pursuant to the terms of the “conditions of probation” that Logan signed and acknowledged upon the commencement of his employment, the probationary period would be “extended by the number of days the employee does not perform the duties of the position, which includes, but is not limited to, sick leave, annual leave, compensatory time off, medically monitored duty, absence without leave or suspension from duty without pay, etc.” See respondents’ mem of law, exhibit 2. The parties agree that Logan used sick leave to miss work on 18 days during his probationary period, and that he also took 13 days of annual leave. See verified petition, 43; respondents’ mem of law at 2-5. This had the effect of extending Logan’s probationary period through August 1, 2019. However, DOC terminated Logan’s employment on July 2, 2019 while his probation was still in effect. See verified petition, 27; respondents’ mem of law at 2-3. The termination letter, which Logan himself initialed on that date, simply states as follows: “Your service as a Probationary Correction Officer will no longer be required, effective Tuesday, July 2, 2019.” Id.; exhibit 1. Logan argues that the 18 days of sick time that he took over a two-year period was not excessive, and has presented copies of medical records to document the legitimacy of each of his absences. See verified petition,
15-27; exhibits A-F. Logan also presents an excerpt of his union’s collective bargaining agreement and of various DOC employee directives which, he asserts, show that a decision to dismiss a corrections officer for having incurred a relatively small number of sick-leave absences runs counter to DOC’s normal employment and termination policies. Id.,
