Opinion
2013-03-13
In the Matter of Patrick CRIBBIN, etc., et al., respondents, v. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, et al., appellants.
John W. McConnell, New York, N.Y. (Lee Alan Adlerstein and Antonio Galvao of counsel), for appellants. Greenberg Burzichelli Greenberg P.C., Lake Success, N.Y. (Harry Greenberg, Seth H. Greenberg, and Linda Keller of counsel), for respondents.
John W. McConnell, New York, N.Y. (Lee Alan Adlerstein and Antonio Galvao of counsel), for appellants. Greenberg Burzichelli Greenberg P.C., Lake Success, N.Y. (Harry Greenberg, Seth H. Greenberg, and Linda Keller of counsel), for respondents.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York to reclassify the petitioners Kevin Anderson, Martin D'Amico, Joseph Cecora, and Kenneth M. Little from the title of New York State Court Officer-Major I (Judicial Grade–26) to the title of New York State Court Officer-Major II (Judicial Grade–28), the appeal, by permission, is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated January 23, 2012, which granted the amended petition and remitted the matter to the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York for further proceedings.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the amended petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
When a classification decision is made, “[t]he courts have the power to reverse or modify a particular classification ... [only] if it is ‘wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis' ” ( Matter of Association of Secretaries to Justices of Supreme & Surrogate's Cts. in City of N.Y. v. Office of Ct. Admin. of State of N.Y., 75 N.Y.2d 460, 476, 554 N.Y.S.2d 431, 553 N.E.2d 979, quoting Cove v. Sise, 71 N.Y.2d 910, 912, 528 N.Y.S.2d 528, 523 N.E.2d 815;see Matter of New York State Ct. Clerks Assn. v. Crosson, 269 A.D.2d 335, 335, 703 N.Y.S.2d 469). So long as the classification determination has a rational basis, a court may not disturb it even if there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion ( see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO v. State of N.Y. Unified Ct. Sys., 55 A.D.3d 1070, 865 N.Y.S.2d 753;Matter of McGreevy v. Classification Review Bd. of Unified Ct. Sys. of State of N.Y., 154 A.D.2d 678, 678, 546 N.Y.S.2d 882;Donegan v. Nadell, 113 A.D.2d 676, 680–681, 497 N.Y.S.2d 692).
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the record established a rational basis for the distinction between the positions of New York State Court Officer Major I (Judicial Grade [hereinafter JG]–26) (hereinafter Major I) and New York State Court Officer Major II (JG–28) (hereinafter Major II) ( see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO v. State of N.Y. Unified Ct. Sys., 35 A.D.3d 1008, 1010, 825 N.Y.S.2d 822;Matter of Rayner v. Sinnot, 241 A.D.2d 601, 602, 659 N.Y.S.2d 346). As set forth in the title standards, a Major I “coordinates” security activities of a court under the supervision of a Security Coordinator (JG–28), who in turn reports to the District Executive and the Administrative Judge. In contrast, a Major II “is directly responsible for all security operations of the court,” and reports directly to the Supreme Court Chief Clerk. Even though there is an overlap in duties, the added managerial aspect provides a rational basis for distinguishing between the two positions ( see Matter of Bertoldi v. Rosenblatt, 167 A.D.2d 237, 238, 561 N.Y.S.2d 736).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.