In re Town of Babylon

4 Citing cases

  1. In the Matter of Hritz-Seifts

    22 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 10 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. It is well established that a public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purposes of economy or efficiency ( see Matter of Aldazabal v. Carey, 44 NY2d 787; Bohan v. County of Westchester, 250 AD2d 796; Matter of Rose v. City of Newburgh, 239 AD2d 587; Matter of Klos v. Town of Babylon, 237 AD2d 291; Matter of Rosenthal v. Gilroy, 208 AD2d 748, 748-749; Matter of Della Vecchia v. Town of N. Hempstead, 207 AD2d 484). It is also well settled that one who challenges the validity of such an act has the burden of proving that the employer did not act in good faith in abolishing the position ( see Matter of Rose v. City of Newburgh, supra; Matter of Klos v. Town of Babylon, supra; Matter of Rosenthal v. Gilroy, supra; Matter of Della Vecchia v. Town of N. Hempstead, supra). The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving that the respondent Town Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie did not act in good faith ( see Matter of Rose v. City of Newburgh, supra; Matter of Klos v. Town of Babylon, supra; Matter of Rosenthal v. Gilroy, supra; Matter of Della Vecchia v. Town of N. Hempstead, supra).

  2. Bohan v. County of Westchester

    250 A.D.2d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Contrary to his contention, the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants' prima facie showing that the defendant County of Westchester abolished his civil service position in a good faith effort to reduce costs and maintain efficiency, and not "as a subterfuge to avoid statutory protection" afforded him pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 Civ. Serv. ( Matter of Klos v. Town of Babylon, 237 A.D.2d 291). Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

  3. Jodre v. Locust Val. Cent. School Dist.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 31076 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Preliminarily, the petitioner concedes that her position "is not within Section 80 of Civil Service Law," but claims that the statute provides analogous support for her claims (Jodre Opp. Aff., ¶ 27). Putting aside the fact that Civil Service Law § 80 is inapplicable to her job title, the record demonstrates that at the time the petitioner's job was abolished, there existed bona fide financial and budgetary considerations significantly impacting upon the District's ability to fulfill its educational mission ( Linney v. City of Plattsburgh, 49 AD3d 1020; Cohen v. Crown Point Cent. School Dist., 306 AD2d 732, 733; Mucci v. City of Binghamton, supra, 245 AD2d 678, 679; Klos v. Town of Babylon, supra, 237 AD2d 291; Della Vecchia v. Town of North Hempstead, 207 AD2d 484, 485; Gagnon v. Board of Educ. of Manhasset Union Free School Dist., 119 AD2d 674). The elimination of the petitioner's job title was only one component of a District-wide program of staff reductions and cost cutting measures approved by the Board in April and May of 2010.

  4. In re Milos v. B.O.E. of City Sch. Dist.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 34261 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)

    A public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purposes of economy or efficiency. (Aldazabal v. Carey, 44 NY2d 787, 788;Klos v. Town of Babylon, 237 AD2d 291 [2nd Dept. 1997]; Rosenthal v. Gilroy, 208 AD2d 748, 748-49 [2nd Dept. 1994]; O'Donnell v. Kirby, 112 AD2d 936 [2nd Dept. 1985]). The entity may not abolish a job position as a subterfuge to avoid the statutory protection afforded to civil servants, however.