Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Tanzosh v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n

Matter of Tanzosh v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n

379 N.E.2d 166, 44 N.Y.2d 906, 44 N.Y. 906, 407 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2095
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 8, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 379 N.E.2d 166 (Matter of Tanzosh v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n) 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 Tanzosh v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 379 N.E.2d 166, 44 N.Y.2d 906, 44 N.Y. 906, 407 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2095 (N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner did not commence this article 78 proceeding seeking appointment until after the subject list of eligibles had expired. Accordingly, the courts may grant him neither appointment from that expired list (Matter of Cash v Bates, 301 NY 258, 261; Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 NY2d 907, decided herewith; cf. Matter of Mena v DAmbrose, 44 NY2d 428), nor the equivalent relief he now seeks of retroactive seniority in his subsequently obtained civil service position (cf. Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 58 AD2d 787, affd 44 NY2d 907, decided herewith). We express no view as to what would be the proper result had petitioner instead commenced a proceeding prior to the expiration of the list and that proceeding had been dismissed for a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

City of NY v. STATE DHR
720 N.E.2d 870 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
City of New York v. New York State Division of Human Rights
720 N.E.2d 870 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)
City of New York v. New York State Division of Human Rights
250 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Moskowitz v. White
182 A.D.2d 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Boasi v. New York City Civil Service Commission
158 A.D.2d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Deas v. Levitt
539 N.E.2d 1086 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
Deas v. Levitt
139 A.D.2d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Kurland v. McLaughlin
122 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Ganguly v. New York State Department of Mental Hygiene-Dunlap Manhattan Psychiatric Center
511 F. Supp. 420 (S.D. New York, 1981)
New York City Department of Personnel v. New York State Division of Human Rights
44 N.Y. 904 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 N.E.2d 166, 44 N.Y.2d 906, 44 N.Y. 906, 407 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tanzosh-v-new-york-city-civil-serv-commn-ny-1978.