Opinion
2012-05-23
In the Matter of Isabel EUGENIO, appellant, v. CITY OF YONKERS, NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Arnold Davis, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Mark W. Blanchard, Yonkers, N.Y. (Michelle H. Klemperer of counsel), for respondents.
Arnold Davis, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Mark W. Blanchard, Yonkers, N.Y. (Michelle H. Klemperer of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent City Council of the City of Yonkers, effective June 30, 2010, which abolished the position of Clerk II Spanish Speaking, and to reinstate the petitioner to that position with back pay, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), dated March 23, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“[A] public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purpose of economy or efficiency” ( Matter of Hritz–Seifts v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 22 A.D.3d 493, 493, 803 N.Y.S.2d 656; see Matter of DiSanza v. Town Bd. of Town of Cortlandt, 90 A.D.3d 659, 659, 933 N.Y.S.2d 877; Matter of Rose v. City of Newburgh, 239 A.D.2d 587, 587, 658 N.Y.S.2d 986). “One who challenges the validity of such an act has the burden of proving that the employer did not act in good faith in abolishing the position” ( Matter of DiSanza v. Town Bd. of Town of Cortlandt, 90 A.D.3d at 659, 933 N.Y.S.2d 877; see Matter of Hritz–Seifts v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 22 A.D.3d at 493, 803 N.Y.S.2d 656; Matter of Rose v. City of Newburgh, 239 A.D.2d at 588, 658 N.Y.S.2d 986; Matter of Rosenthal v. Gilroy, 208 A.D.2d 748, 749, 617 N.Y.S.2d 509; see also Matter of Aldazabal v. Carey, 44 N.Y.2d 787, 788, 406 N.Y.S.2d 32, 377 N.E.2d 476). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving her position was abolished in bad faith ( see Matter of DiSanza v. Town Bd. of Town of Cortlandt, 90 A.D.3d at 659, 933 N.Y.S.2d 877; Matter of Hritz–Seifts v. Town of Poughkeepsie, 22 A.D.3d at 493, 803 N.Y.S.2d 656; Matter of Rose v. City of Newburgh, 239 A.D.2d at 587, 658 N.Y.S.2d 986; Matter of Della Vecchia v. Town of N. Hempstead, 207 A.D.2d 484, 485, 616 N.Y.S.2d 56).
Denial of the petitioner's request for leave to conduct a deposition was appropriate. The submissions in opposition to the petition were sufficient to credibly support the determination to abolish the petitioner's position and, under the circumstances, the petitioner's request for further inquiry *909 amounted to “no more than an expression of hope insufficient to warrant deferral of judgment” ( Price v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 51 A.D.3d 277, 293, 855 N.Y.S.2d 530).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.