Reis v. New York State Housing Finance Agency

543 N.E.2d 77, 74 N.Y.2d 724, 544 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 834
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 30, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 543 N.E.2d 77 (Reis v. New York State Housing Finance Agency) 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
Reis v. New York State Housing Finance Agency, 543 N.E.2d 77, 74 N.Y.2d 724, 544 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 834 (N.Y. 1989).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed against respondent Agency.

Petitioner’s probationary period commenced on the date he was appointed a permanent employee, February 7, 1985, not the date he passed the qualifying examination, December 18, 1984 (Civil Service Law § 61). Accordingly, petitioner was not entitled to the protection of the provisions of Civil Service [726]*726Law § 75 until one year from the February date, adjusted for absences (see, 4 NYCRR 4.5 [f]), and the Agency was entitled to remove him, as it did, without formal charges or hearing.

In holding that the December date controlled, the Appellate Division relied on our decision in Matter of Montero v Lum (68 NY2d 253). In that case, the petitioner contended that the one-year period should be measured from the date of his temporary appointment. We rejected that contention, holding that the one-year period could not commence until the applicant became eligible for permanent appointment, which could only occur after successful completion of the qualifying examination. Coincidentally, the date of petitioner Montero’s permanent appointment and the examination date were the same and so we spoke of the date of the examination to distinguish it from the date of the temporary appointment. Our decision in Montero did not change the statutorily fixed rule that the date of permanent appointment controls for purposes of measuring the probationary period.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review, reversed, etc.

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

Related

Matter of Russell v. New York State Ins. Fund
2020 NY Slip Op 1717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Ortiz v. Manhattan Psychiatric Center
27 A.D.3d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Easling v. Odessa-Montour Central School District
10 A.D.3d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
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)
Grant v. New York State Office of Mental Health
215 A.D.2d 253 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Matter of Vill. of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Dep't of Civil Serv.
572 N.E.2d 34 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Atkinson v. Koch
161 A.D.2d 152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Hill v. City of New York
160 A.D.2d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service
157 A.D.2d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
543 N.E.2d 77, 74 N.Y.2d 724, 544 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reis-v-new-york-state-housing-finance-agency-ny-1989.