Ensley v. Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ensley v. Diamond

266 A.D.2d 131, 699 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12338

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 131 (Ensley v. Diamond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ensley v. Diamond, 266 A.D.2d 131, 699 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered April 2, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioners’ application to annul a resolution adopted by respondent New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services on November 12, 1998 and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not support petitioners’ assertion that Resolution 98-12 reclassified existing positions and, accordingly, that in enacting it, respondents were required to comply with Civil Service Law § 20. Rather, the challenged resolution created new titles, each of which encompassed more than one assignment. The consolidation of assignments under the same title, with no additional examinations required to move between assignments within the title, a practice known as “broadbanding”, is permissible under the Civil Service Law (Matter of Kitchings v Jenkins, 85 NY2d 694, 699, citing Matter of Sanger v Greene, 269 NY 33; Matter of Green v Lang, 18 NY2d 437). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered April 2, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioners’ application to annul a resolution adopted by respondent New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services on November 12, 1998 and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not support petitioners’ assertion that Resolution 98-12 reclassified existing positions and, accordingly, that in enacting it, respondents were required to comply with Civil Service Law § 20. Rather, the challenged resolution created new titles, each of which encompassed more than one assignment. The consolidation of assignments under the same title, with no additional examinations required to move between assignments within the title, a practice known as “broadbanding”, is permissible under the Civil Service Law (Matter of Kitchings v Jenkins, 85 NY2d 694, 699, citing Matter of Sanger v Greene, 269 NY 33; Matter of Green v Lang, 18 NY2d 437). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 131, 699 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ensley-v-diamond-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack