Carro v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carro v. City of New York

214 A.D.2d 450, 625 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4423

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 20, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 18, 1994, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint in an action seeking damages for unlawful disability discrimination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on her cause of action for unlawful disability discrimination did not [451] entitle her to an award of back pay or other retroactive benefits. Because of the strong State policy underlying the broad hiring discretion vested in defendant City and its appointing authorities under Civil Service Law § 61, plaintiff had merely a hope of appointment as a result of having passed a civil service examination, not a legally protectable interest in appointment (Matter of Andriola v Ortiz, 82 NY2d 320, cert denied sub nom. Andriola v Antinoro, — US —, 114 S Ct 1541). The present matter does not involve the widespread "continuing pattern of discriminatory conduct” presented in Matter of Beame v DeLeon (209 AD2d 252, 253).

We have considered plaintiff’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 18, 1994, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint in an action seeking damages for unlawful disability discrimination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on her cause of action for unlawful disability discrimination did not [451] entitle her to an award of back pay or other retroactive benefits. Because of the strong State policy underlying the broad hiring discretion vested in defendant City and its appointing authorities under Civil Service Law § 61, plaintiff had merely a hope of appointment as a result of having passed a civil service examination, not a legally protectable interest in appointment (Matter of Andriola v Ortiz, 82 NY2d 320, cert denied sub nom. Andriola v Antinoro, — US —, 114 S Ct 1541). The present matter does not involve the widespread "continuing pattern of discriminatory conduct” presented in Matter of Beame v DeLeon (209 AD2d 252, 253).

We have considered plaintiff’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Carro v. City of New York, 214 A.D.2d 450, 625 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

214 A.D.2d 450 (Carro v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related