McCambridge v. Flynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCambridge v. Flynn

69 A.D.2d 863, 415 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11571

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

DecidedApril 16, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 863 (McCambridge v. Flynn) 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

McCambridge v. Flynn, 69 A.D.2d 863, 415 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel the petitioner’s appointment to a certain competitive civil service position, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 1, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding to the end of the decretal paragraph the following: "except that the appointment of respondent Francavilla to the position of sewage plant operations supervisor is annulled”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In February, 1977 the Suffolk County Civil Service Commission certified a list of eligibles for appointment to the position of sewage plant operations supervisor. Of the individuals certified, four expressed an interest in a vacancy existing for the position. Respondent Francavilla, whose examination grade was the third highest of the four, received the appointment. Petitioner, who had received the lowest grade of the eligibles, was the only Suffolk County resident among the four. He commenced the instant proceeding to compel his appointment to the position. Special Term properly denied the relief requested (see Redman v New York City Tr. Auth., 14 AD2d 911; Kaminsky v Leary, 33 AD2d 552). However, it should have annulled the appointment of respondent Francavilla. Suffolk County, under the authority of subdivision 4-a of section 23 of the Civil Service Law, requires that eligibles who are residents of Suffolk County be certified first for appointment to county civil service positions (see Suffolk County Resolution No. 70-1975; County Executive Management Order No. 7-1975). Under this policy, petitioner, the only resident in the group, should have been ranked first among the eligibles. The highest graded nonresidents were entitled to the second and third rankings. One of these three individuals should have been appointed to the [864]*864position of sewage plant operations supervisor (see Civil Service Law, § 61). Respondent Francavilla, who, under this formula, was not one of the three highest-ranked eligibles, should not have been appointed to the position. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel the petitioner’s appointment to a certain competitive civil service position, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 1, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding to the end of the decretal paragraph the following: "except that the appointment of respondent Francavilla to the position of sewage plant operations supervisor is annulled”. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In February, 1977 the Suffolk County Civil Service Commission certified a list of eligibles for appointment to the position of sewage plant operations supervisor. Of the individuals certified, four expressed an interest in a vacancy existing for the position. Respondent Francavilla, whose examination grade was the third highest of the four, received the appointment. Petitioner, who had received the lowest grade of the eligibles, was the only Suffolk County resident among the four. He commenced the instant proceeding to compel his appointment to the position. Special Term properly denied the relief requested (see Redman v New York City Tr. Auth., 14 AD2d 911; Kaminsky v Leary, 33 AD2d 552). However, it should have annulled the appointment of respondent Francavilla. Suffolk County, under the authority of subdivision 4-a of section 23 of the Civil Service Law, requires that eligibles who are residents of Suffolk County be certified first for appointment to county civil service positions (see Suffolk County Resolution No. 70-1975; County Executive Management Order No. 7-1975). Under this policy, petitioner, the only resident in the group, should have been ranked first among the eligibles. The highest graded nonresidents were entitled to the second and third rankings. One of these three individuals should have been appointed to the [864]*864position of sewage plant operations supervisor (see Civil Service Law, § 61). Respondent Francavilla, who, under this formula, was not one of the three highest-ranked eligibles, should not have been appointed to the position. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 863, 415 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccambridge-v-flynn-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack