Murphy v. Larkin

20 A.D.2d 595, 245 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2656
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 595 (Murphy v. Larkin) 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
Murphy v. Larkin, 20 A.D.2d 595, 245 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

Upon the prior appeal (17 A D 2d 87), we expressed our conclusion that petitioner was lawfully appointed to a permanent position in the competitive class” (p. 90) and while our opinion admitted the possibility of a determination that [596]*596" petitioner’s appointment should be in the noncompetitive class ” (p. 91), in this case the distinction is not important if petitioner was a deputy, as Special Term has now found; this because both classes, competitive and non-competitive, are within the “ classified service ” (Civil Service Law, § 40) in which we found (p. 91) petitioner had “permanent * * R employment” (§ 75, subd. 1, par. [b]) and in which he would, as a veteran, be entitled to charges of misconduct and a hearing before removal, unless he was a “ deputy of any official or department” (par. [b], above cited). Conceding that, when appointed, he'was indeed a deputy, petitioner contends that he ceased to be such when, for a period prior to his dismissal, he was not permitted to perform any of the duties of a deputy but was limited to such work as the corporation counsel from time to time assigned him; but this, as we indicated in our prior opinion (p. 92), “has no relevancy on the question whether he was a deputy.” In any event, there was no change in title, classification or salary prior to petitioner’s dismissal and the evidence otherwise supports the Special Term finding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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

Related

Sullivan v. Superintendent of Insurance
103 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.2d 595, 245 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-larkin-nyappdiv-1963.