Opinion
October 3, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
While we find unpersuasive the respondents' contention that this appeal has been rendered academic by reason of the expiration of the eligible list upon which the petitioner's name appears (see, e.g., Matter of Mena v D'Ambrose, 44 N.Y.2d 428; Matter of McCoy v Leonard, 140 A.D.2d 525), we nevertheless conclude that an affirmance upon the merits is appropriate. The record contains ample evidence, including two psychological evaluation reports prepared by experts, which indicates, inter alia, that the petitioner has repeatedly flouted authority, exercised poor judgment, and been evasive in disclosing details from his past. Hence, it cannot be said that the determination disqualifying him from appointment is irrational or arbitrary and capricious, and the respondents were not required to treat the contrary conclusion of the petitioner's expert as controlling (see, e.g., Matter of Palozzolo v Nadel, 83 A.D.2d 530, affd 55 N.Y.2d 984; Matter of Kornfeld v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 138 A.D.2d 710; Matter of Brussel v LoGrande, 137 A.D.2d 686). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.