Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Inasmuch as the alleged discriminatory act occurred prior to the effective date of the 1979 amendment to Executive Law § 292 (21), it was only necessary to demonstrate that complainant’s physical or medical condition in some way interfered with her performance in the training program in order to justify her dismissal. (See, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527 , 531-532; Matter of Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 49 NY2d 234 , 237.) Here, it cannot be said that the Division’s determination, that complainant was unable sufficiently to participate in the program, was arbitrary and capricious. (See, State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276 , 284.)
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Cases cited
- Miller v. Ravitch 60 NY2d 527 at 531-532 p. 701
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights 49 NY2d 234 at 237 p. 701
- State Office of Drug Abuse Services v. State Human Rights Appeal Board 48 NY2d 276 at 284 p. 701