Summary
In Brooks v Purcell (131 A.D.2d 620, 621), this court considered whether the County's promotion of an individual who had less seniority than another violated a collective bargaining agreement which, as with the agreement in this case, provided that "[a]bility, adaptability and seniority shall prevail insofar as practicable and consistent with the needs of the department".
Summary of this case from Shelton v. PurcellOpinion
June 15, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted, the promotion and appointment of Sara Smith is declared not to be in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and the complaint is otherwise dismissed (cf., Lanza v Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901).
The plaintiffs challenge the promotion of another applicant, Sara Smith, who had less seniority than did the plaintiff Albertha Brooks, to the position in question. The collective bargaining agreement provision applicable here provides that "[a]bility, adaptability and seniority shall prevail insofar as practicable and consistent with the needs of the department".
The county has broad discretion in determining how to use these criteria and in making hiring and promotion decisions, and its decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Neubeck v Bard, 275 N.Y. 43; Matter of Apuzzo v County of Ulster, 98 A.D.2d 869, affd 62 N.Y.2d 960; Matter of Objectant No. 37801 v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 33 A.D.2d 811, lv denied 27 N.Y.2d 481). The record herein unequivocally establishes that the defendants had a rational basis for concluding that the employee who received the promotion had ability and adaptability superior to that of the plaintiff Brooks, and that the decision to promote the other employee was not an abuse of discretion (Matter of Objectant No. 37801 v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., supra, at 812; cf., Matter of Apuzzo v County of Ulster, supra, at 870). The plaintiffs have failed to raise a factual issue as to whether the defendants' determination was irrational or an abuse of discretion, and hence the defendants' motion should have been granted. We find no merit to the plaintiffs' contention that the affidavits and documents submitted in support of the defendants' motion, including comparative evaluations of the applicants by each supervisor and the recommendation by the chief housekeeper, are an insufficient basis on which to grant summary judgment (see, Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 1092; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.