Matter of Marcus v. Ingersoll

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Marcus v. Ingersoll

194 N.E. 855, 266 N.Y. 359, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1381

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 194 N.E. 855 (Matter of Marcus v. Ingersoll) 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

Matter of Marcus v. Ingersoll, 194 N.E. 855, 266 N.Y. 359, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1381 (N.Y. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

*361 Per Curiam.

The petitioner in October, 1916, was appointed junior assistant in the office of the Public Service Commission of the First District, New York city. He served under the Public Service Commission and its successor official bodies until June 18, 1923. Then he resigned. On October 8th, 1923, he was appointed a topographical draftsman, Grade C, in the office of the Borough President of Brooklyn. That appointment was provisional. He was definitively appointed to that position on December 16th, 1924. Then he was suspended for lack of work. Such suspensions must be made “ in the inverse order of original appointment in the service.” (Civil Service Law, § 31; Cons. Laws, ch. 7.) The Municipal Civil Service Commission ruled that the date of the petitioner’s original appointment was December 16th, 1924. The courts below have held that the date of the original appointment was October 25th, 1916.

Resignation of his position under the Transit Commission terminated the petitioner’s service. True, the rules of the State Civil Service Commission and the rules of the Municipal Civil Service Commission both provide that in certain circumstances a person who has resigned may be reinstated within one year without examination. Reinstatement might then have the effect of wiping out the resignation and renewed service might be traced in •unbroken fine to original appointment. Here, however, the petitioner was not reinstated in his former position, nor was he transferred to another position of the same grade or in the same service. He was given a provisional office by the city officer pending a new examination. So far as appears, the new appointment, though made within a year after the resignation, was not connected with the previous service and must be regarded as an original appointment, and forms the date from which the petitioner’s place in the order of suspension must be determined.

*362 The orders should be reversed and the proceedings dismissed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.

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

*361 Per Curiam.

The petitioner in October, 1916, was appointed junior assistant in the office of the Public Service Commission of the First District, New York city. He served under the Public Service Commission and its successor official bodies until June 18, 1923. Then he resigned. On October 8th, 1923, he was appointed a topographical draftsman, Grade C, in the office of the Borough President of Brooklyn. That appointment was provisional. He was definitively appointed to that position on December 16th, 1924. Then he was suspended for lack of work. Such suspensions must be made “ in the inverse order of original appointment in the service.” (Civil Service Law, § 31; Cons. Laws, ch. 7.) The Municipal Civil Service Commission ruled that the date of the petitioner’s original appointment was December 16th, 1924. The courts below have held that the date of the original appointment was October 25th, 1916.

Resignation of his position under the Transit Commission terminated the petitioner’s service. True, the rules of the State Civil Service Commission and the rules of the Municipal Civil Service Commission both provide that in certain circumstances a person who has resigned may be reinstated within one year without examination. Reinstatement might then have the effect of wiping out the resignation and renewed service might be traced in •unbroken fine to original appointment. Here, however, the petitioner was not reinstated in his former position, nor was he transferred to another position of the same grade or in the same service. He was given a provisional office by the city officer pending a new examination. So far as appears, the new appointment, though made within a year after the resignation, was not connected with the previous service and must be regarded as an original appointment, and forms the date from which the petitioner’s place in the order of suspension must be determined.

*362 The orders should be reversed and the proceedings dismissed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 N.E. 855, 266 N.Y. 359, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-marcus-v-ingersoll-ny-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack