Opinion
December 30, 1970
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 21, 1960 in Suffolk County, which denied respondent's motion for a change of venue and granted petitioners' application for permanent Civil Service status as Senior Court Officers in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, without the necessity of having to take any further examinations to maintain such status. These proceedings have been transferred here pursuant to CPLR 5711 by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, entered October 7, 1970. There is no appeal from that part of the judgment which denied the motion for a change of venue. Petitioners were appointed to the competitive position of Court Attendant in Suffolk County after passing the Civil Service examination for that position. In July, 1967 the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference converted the position of Court Attendant into two new classifications, to wit: "Uniform Court Officer" and "Senior Court Officer". Although petitioners' positions were evaluated at the level of Senior Court Officer, their status and titles remained as Uniform Court Officer. Petitioners have been provisionally appointed to the position of Senior Court Officer pending competitive examination. Petitioners seek in this article 78 proceeding, in the nature of mandamus, to compel the Administrator of the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference to reclassify them in the position of Senior Court Officer without requiring them to qualify by taking a competitive examination. Petitioners contend that they have performed all of the duties called for by the requirements of the position of Senior Court Officer, and are entitled to that classification without further examination. Appellant contends that petitioners are barred from instituting this mandamus proceeding since they have not exhausted their administrative remedy by appealing their reclassification to the "Special Classification Appeals Board". Petitioners have no absolute legal right to reclassification and are, therefore, not entitled to such relief by way of mandamus. ( Matter of Kalichstein v. McCoy, 23 N.Y.2d 978.) "Mandamus will not issue where another remedy is available or provided by law." ( Matter of Towers Management Corp. v. Thatcher, 271 N.Y. 94, 97.) Petitioners' remedy is to seek administrative review through the machinery provided by the Judicial Conference. Application for such review is a condition precedent to resort to the courts in an article 78 proceeding. ( Matter of Bianchi v. McCoy, 32 A.D.2d 871, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 770; Matter of Buffalo Gen. Hosp. v. Sipprell, 33 A.D.2d 977.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and petition dismissed, without costs. Reynolds, J.P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.