Gassner v. Board of Examiners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gassner v. Board of Examiners

27 A.D.2d 662, 277 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5024

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 662 (Gassner v. Board of Examiners) 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

Gassner v. Board of Examiners, 27 A.D.2d 662, 277 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 16, 1966, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine the objectivity of the standards contained in the rating schedule applied in measuring petitioner’s relative training and experience. No questions' of fact were considered. Petitioner’s qualifications must be rated by objective standards (Matter of Fink v. Finegan, 270 N. Y. 356). The requirement of objectivity is not meaningful in this case unless the rating schedule employed is open to review by the courts. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur. [51 Misc 2d 467.]

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 16, 1966, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine the objectivity of the standards contained in the rating schedule applied in measuring petitioner’s relative training and experience. No questions' of fact were considered. Petitioner’s qualifications must be rated by objective standards (Matter of Fink v. Finegan, 270 N. Y. 356). The requirement of objectivity is not meaningful in this case unless the rating schedule employed is open to review by the courts. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur. [51 Misc 2d 467.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 662, 277 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gassner-v-board-of-examiners-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack