Opinion
November 28, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).
We find that the court properly sustained petitioners' objections as to the key answers to questions 5, 15, 31, and 73, applying the standard that the "answer given by the candidates on the test is better or at least as good" as the key answer supplied by respondent, in accord with the procedures outlined in Matter of Acosta v Lang ( 13 N.Y.2d 1079).
Also, the court properly extended the duration of the special list for a four-year period consistent with Civil Service Law § 56, commencing at the time the list was corrected. As held in Matter of Mena v D'Ambrose ( 44 N.Y.2d 428), where an eligible list has been formulated on the basis of an erroneous examination, the aggrieved are entitled to the continuation of a special list. Furthermore, "the statutory life of the list does not begin until the list is corrected" (Matter of Deas v Levitt, 73 N.Y.2d 525, 530, citing Matter of Mena v D'Ambrose, 44 N.Y.2d 428, supra).
Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Rosenberger, Smith and Rubin, JJ.