Sherman v. Leonard

New York Court of Appeals

Sherman v. Leonard

360 N.E.2d 352, 40 N.Y.2d 1038, 391 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3225

DecidedDecember 22, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 360 N.E.2d 352 (Sherman v. Leonard) 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

Sherman v. Leonard, 360 N.E.2d 352, 40 N.Y.2d 1038, 391 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3225 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Appellant was never appointed as a Probation Officer II, nor was she ever provisionally appointed as a Senior Probation Officer, the predecessor category to Probation Officer II, as were the 63 other civil servants. As a result, she was not in line for advancement as she met neither the one-year requirement as Probation Officer II nor the three-year requirement as Probation Officer I. The Civil Service Commission made the determination as to what requirements were necessary to achieve the position of Probation Supervisor I and Special Term properly dismissed the appellant’s petition since the appellant had failed to meet these prerequisites.

In this respect, as noted by the Appellate Division, the determination by the commission was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Appellant was never appointed as a Probation Officer II, nor was she ever provisionally appointed as a Senior Probation Officer, the predecessor category to Probation Officer II, as were the 63 other civil servants. As a result, she was not in line for advancement as she met neither the one-year requirement as Probation Officer II nor the three-year requirement as Probation Officer I. The Civil Service Commission made the determination as to what requirements were necessary to achieve the position of Probation Supervisor I and Special Term properly dismissed the appellant’s petition since the appellant had failed to meet these prerequisites.

In this respect, as noted by the Appellate Division, the determination by the commission was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 N.E.2d 352, 40 N.Y.2d 1038, 391 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-leonard-ny-1976.