From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Brannigan v. Board of Commissioners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 2000
273 A.D.2d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 28, 2000.

June 5, 2000.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents to promote an employee other than the petitioners to the position of Labor Supervisor of the Great Neck Park District, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated May 10, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen G. Walko of counsel), for appellants.

Ackerman, Levine, Cullen Brickman, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (John M. Brickman and James A. Bradley of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners did not carry their burden of demonstrating that the respondents' determination was irrational or arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Arrocha v. Board of Educ., 93 N.Y.2d 361; Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231; Colton v. Berman, 21 N.Y.2d 322; Matter of Conlon v. Commissioner of Civ. Servs. of County of Suffolk, 225 A.D.2d 766). Moreover, Article XIX, Section (1)(b) of the parties' collective bargaining agreement expressly authorized the respondents to promote a candidate based upon his or her "qualifications" as well as his or her seniority. The appointing authority additionally properly examined the applicants' relative personal suitability for the post (see, Matter of Cassidy v. Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn., 37 N.Y.2d 526, 529; Matter of Hatala v. McCall, 253 A.D.2d 666). Because there is a rational basis for the respondents' determination, it will not be disturbed (see, e.g., Matter of Wagner v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 304; Matter of Gallo v. Ritter, 195 A.D.2d 461).


Summaries of

In re Brannigan v. Board of Commissioners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 2000
273 A.D.2d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re Brannigan v. Board of Commissioners

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN BRANNIGAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 115

Citing Cases

Clinton Mews Owners Corp. v. New York City Water Board

That finding was not arbitrary and capricious, and it supported the conclusion that the petitioner did not…

Bayley v. N.Y.C. Water Bd.

Contrary to the petitioners' assertions, and the Supreme Court's determination, the petitioners failed to…