From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Burke v. Fields

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 1951
279 App. Div. 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

November 26, 1951.


In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, respondents appeal from an order which (1) vacated an "unsatisfactory" rating given by them to the petitioner upon a certain portion of a noncompetitive examination for license as principal of vocational high school; and (2) directed them to certify petitioner as qualified for said license, subject to his meeting necessary physical and medical standards. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and petition dismissed. Examinations to determine merit and fitness for appointments and promotions in the civil service of the State, as contemplated by the State Constitution (art. V, § 6), should be of such nature as will best test the candidates with respect to the qualities demanded by the positions to which they aspire. Insofar as possible, merit and fitness should be measured by objective standards, but determination of fitness for some positions, particularly those which require executive and intellectual ability and broad cultural learning, cannot always be based on objectivity solely. In such cases, the examinations may be subjective insofar as objectivity is impracticable or impossible, and to the extent that it is subjective the risk that the examiners themselves are fit to examine must be accepted. (See Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367, and Matter of Bridgman v. Kern, 257 App. Div. 420, affd. 282 N.Y. 375. ) In our opinion, the examination under review did not do violence to the principles above mentioned, and there was reasonable basis for application of the requirement that candidates prove themselves to be "superior" in the performance of their present duties in order to be approved by the examiners. The facts presented by the record on appeal form a sufficient basis to indicate that the conclusion of the board of examiners was not beyond the limits of proper restraints. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. ( Matter of Barnett v. Fields, 196 Misc. 339, 347, affd. 276 App. Div. 903, affd. 301 N.Y. 543.) Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Burke v. Fields

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 1951
279 App. Div. 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Matter of Burke v. Fields

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN J. BURKE, Respondent, against HAROLD FIELDS et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 26, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Matter of Nelson v. Board of Examiners

These qualities cannot be measured with any degree of precision. In such cases "Much must be left * * * to…

Matter of Gimprich v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y

" (See People ex rel. Scott v. Reid, 135 App. Div. 89, 93; note, 102 A.L.R. 537.) Administrative acts may be…