Koso v. Greene

184 N.E. 65, 260 N.Y. 491, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 784
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 10, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by70 cases

This text of 184 N.E. 65 (Koso v. Greene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Koso v. Greene, 184 N.E. 65, 260 N.Y. 491, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 784 (N.Y. 1933).

Opinion

Crouch, J.

Plaintiff on January 12, 1931, received a permanent appointment as an architectural designer in the Department of Public Works of this State, from an eligible list under the civil service. He was suspended *494 May 5, 1932, by reason of lack of appropriations for that department. Other architectural designers who received provisional or temporary appointments prior to the plaintiff’s permanent appointment, but whose permanent appointments were subsequent to his, have been retained in the employment of the department.

Section 31 of the Civil Service Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 7) provides that “ Any person who while holding a position in the competitive class under the civil service law or rules, has been separated from the service * * * through no delinquency or misconduct on his part shall be deemed to be suspended without pay, which suspension shall be made in the inverse order of original appointment in the service,” etc.

This action on a submission of facts is to determine whether, in construing this statute, the time in service is to be computed from the date of appointment to any civil service class, or whether it contemplates only the original permanent appointment in the competitive class.

By the provisions of section 15 of this law, vacancies in the competitive class which may normally be filled only upon examination and in order of priority upon the eligible list, may be filled by a provisional appointment not exceeding four months, if there are urgent reasons for so doing and no eligible fist exists; and temporary appointments for a period of not more than one month may be made from an eligible fist without regard to the appointee’s standing thereon under similar conditions of urgency. With certain exceptions not here important provisional and temporary appointments may be terminated at any time. Temporary or provisional appointees, though in a sense holding positions in the competitive class, are, for reasons of necessity, exempt from the civil service requirements for appointment; and similarly, so long as they hold such positions, they are entitled to none of the advantages secured by period of tenure under the civil service rules. (Cf. Civil Service Rules, rule VIII [8].) *495 Permanent appointments are made without reference to whether the appointee is holding a temporary or provisional appointment to the same position, or how long such appointment has lasted. These appointments are mere stop-gaps, exceptions of necessity to the general rules with respect to the filling of such positions, and are in no sense probationary. While such appointments may on occasion be succeeded by a permanent appointment, this may only be by virtue of examination and eligibility under the civil service laws, and not by reason of any ripening of the temporary or provisional appointment into a permanent appointment.

Looking only at the wording of section 31, it is literally true that a provisional or temporary appointee is holding a position in the competitive class. But he is holding it merely as a locum, tenens. He has no competitive tenure of position in that class- (People ex rel. Rosenthal v. Travis, 169 App. Div. 203) and as the non-competitive appointment secures him no preference of permanent appointment, neither does it give him preference of retention over those higher in eligibility for original permanent appointment.

We think the spirit and the reason inherent in article V, section 6, of the Constitution require a holding that the words “ original appointment ” as used in section 31 of the Civil Service Law mean an appointment from an eligible list for a probationary term ripening at the end of three months’ satisfactory service into a permanent appointment.

The judgment should be reversed and judgment directed for plaintiff as asked for in the submission, with costs in all courts.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Related

Croft v. Village of Newark
35 F. Supp. 3d 359 (W.D. New York, 2014)
Lee v. Albany-Schoharie-Schenectady-Saratoga Board of Cooperative Educational Services
69 A.D.3d 1289 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
City of Long Beach v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
867 N.E.2d 389 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. State of New York Department of Civil Service
250 A.D.2d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Russo v. White
775 F. Supp. 639 (S.D. New York, 1991)
Montero v. Lum
501 N.E.2d 5 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Rivera v. Beekman
86 A.D.2d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Haynes v. County of Chautauqua
432 N.E.2d 132 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
Onondaga Chapter v. Bobenhausen
69 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Hannon v. Bartlett
63 A.D.2d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Wadsworth v. Garnsey
62 A.D.2d 1141 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Koenig v. Morin
372 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Association of Surrogate's & Supreme Court Reporters v. City of New York
57 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Mierzwa v. Genesee County Civil Service Commission
55 A.D.2d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Desmond v. Bartlett
52 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Keyer v. Civil Service Commission of City of New York
397 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D. New York, 1975)
Giordano v. Henry
44 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Russell v. Hodges
470 F.2d 212 (Second Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 N.E. 65, 260 N.Y. 491, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koso-v-greene-ny-1933.