Walter v. City of New York Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walter v. City of New York Police Department

244 A.D.2d 205, 664 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11387

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered May 30, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has demonstrated that the maximum age limitation for appointment of New York City police officers (Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-109) bears a rational relationship to legitimate purposes and, therefore, suffers from no infirmity under the State and Federal Equal Protection Clauses (see, Timerman v Bence, 176 AD2d 1220). The age limitation, contained in a special law, has not been impliedly repealed by the general City and State Human Rights Laws (Administrative Code § 8-107 [a]; Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council v New York City Dept, of Sanitation, 83 NY2d 215, 222-223). Plaintiffs did not suffer a deprivation of due process by virtue of defendant’s failure to include the age limitation on the notice of examination, because passing the examination did not confer a right to appointment (Civil Service Law § 61; Matter of Cassidy v Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn., 37 NY2d 526).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered May 30, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has demonstrated that the maximum age limitation for appointment of New York City police officers (Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-109) bears a rational relationship to legitimate purposes and, therefore, suffers from no infirmity under the State and Federal Equal Protection Clauses (see, Timerman v Bence, 176 AD2d 1220). The age limitation, contained in a special law, has not been impliedly repealed by the general City and State Human Rights Laws (Administrative Code § 8-107 [a]; Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council v New York City Dept, of Sanitation, 83 NY2d 215, 222-223). Plaintiffs did not suffer a deprivation of due process by virtue of defendant’s failure to include the age limitation on the notice of examination, because passing the examination did not confer a right to appointment (Civil Service Law § 61; Matter of Cassidy v Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn., 37 NY2d 526).

We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Walter v. City of New York Police Department, 244 A.D.2d 205, 664 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

244 A.D.2d 205 (Walter v. City of New York Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related