Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing prior to her termination since the probationary period of her employment had been automatically extended by one day for every day that she was absent or on limited duty (Rules of City Personnel Director [59 RCNY Appendix A] §§ 5.2.1, 5.2.8 [a], [b]; Rules of Department of Correction § 3.20.015 [a], [b]; see, Matter of Rivoli v. Stern, 160 A.D.2d 601), and thus had not been completed by the date of her termination. Nor has petitioner sustained her burden of showing that her termination was based on a perceived disability in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Chronic absenteeism is a sufficient basis for terminating a probationary employee (Nelson v. Abate, 205 A.D.2d 454), and even though the absenteeism was due to a disability, a discriminatory motive will not be inferred in the absence of proof that the absenteeism did not prevent the employee from reasonably performing the duties of the position (Executive Law § 292; see, Matter of Dukelow v Lum, 112 A.D.2d 302).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.