From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Buckley v. Conway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 26, 1946
270 App. Div. 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Opinion

June 26, 1946.

Appeal from Supreme Court.


Petitioner was appointed to the position of assistant bank examiner in March, 1930. He continued therein until the year 1932 when his title was changed to junior bank examiner under which title he has been employed up to the present time. His length of service as a junior bank examiner furnishes a persuasive argument that he is entitled to promotion. The State Classification Board and the Civil Service Commission conducted hearings on petitioner's application for reclassification of his position. Petitioner was given full opportunity to present the facts upon which he relied to justify reclassification. His application was denied. The language of sections 47, 48 and 48-a of the Civil Service Law vests broad powers in the board and in the commission. On the record before us we may not say that either the board or the commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously and in the absence of such proof this court may not interfere ( Matter of Levine v. Connelly, 267 App. Div. 796, motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, 267 App. Div. 926, and 292 N.Y. 724). The order appealed from is affirmed, without costs. All concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Buckley v. Conway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 26, 1946
270 App. Div. 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)
Case details for

Matter of Buckley v. Conway

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GERARD A. BUCKLEY, Appellant, against J. EDWARD CONWAY et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 26, 1946

Citations

270 App. Div. 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Citing Cases

Matter of Schwartz v. Falk

The mere possibility that the court might be of opinion a different allocation ought to have been made of the…

Matter of Adams v. Krone

den. 5 A.D.2d 908, 5 N.Y.2d 706). There is no contention here that petitioners' rights were violated…