From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Powers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 1999
262 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 29, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).


To the extent that petitioners seek relief in the nature of mandamus, their application must fail since they have not established a clear legal right to such relief ( see, Matter of Altamore v. Barrios-Paoli, 90 N.Y.2d 378, 384-385), and to the extent that petitioners challenge respondents' exercise of discretion, their application must also fail since they have not shown that the challenged discretionary acts were arbitrary or motivated by bad faith ( see, supra, at 386). Contrary to petitioners' contention, Civil Service Law § 50-a Civ. Serv. includes no requirement that a test be made available during the entire 30 days given for preparation of a protest ( see, Matter of Alonge v. Carnavale, 261 A.D.2d 313). With respect to petitioners' contention that respondents' grant of intervenors' request to take a make-up examination violated respondents' own regulation, we find no ground upon which to deem respondents' interpretation of their own regulation to permit the make-up unreasonable or irrational and, accordingly, defer to that interpretation ( see, Matter of Liberty Lines Express v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 160 A.D.2d 295, 296). With respect to petitioners' claims of age discrimination based upon the rescheduling of the examination, we agree with the IAS Court that petitioners have failed to make a prima facie showing that the rescheduling reflected a discriminatory intent ( see, O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 311-312). Moreover, respondents have articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged decision to reschedule the examination ( see, Ioele v. Alden Press, 145 A.D.2d 29, 36), and petitioners have failed to demonstrate that that articulated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination ( see, e.g., Matter of New York Tel. Co. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 222 A.D.2d 234, 235). We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. We modify only to declare in respondents' favor, since declaratory relief was sought herein ( see, Cohen v. Employers Reins. Corp., 117 A.D.2d 435), that the subject examination was, to the extent challenged, legally formulated and administered.

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Powers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 1999
262 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Powers v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DEREK L. POWERS et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 366

Citing Cases

Slattery v. City of New York

As the motion court aptly observed and detailed, there are enormous differences between marriage and domestic…

Gebran v. New York City Department of Education

Upon petitioner's return to teaching the following school year, the BOE acted expeditiously to investigate…