Opinion
Argued January 9, 1986
Decided February 6, 1986
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department.
Lewis M. Steel and Gina Novendstern for appellant.
Derek Wolman for respondents.
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 N.Y.2d 527, 531-532; Matter of Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 49 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 276, 284.)
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.