Summary
recognizing that Civil Service Law § 75 passed in 1958
Summary of this case from Mazzeo v. City of Rochester (In re Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc.)Opinion
December 1, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that the savings clause in Civil Service Law § 76 Civ. Serv. (4), providing that nothing in Civil Service Law § 75 Civ. Serv. shall be construed to "repeal or modify" any local laws, is an unambiguous grandfathering provision that does not apply to the subsequently enacted Administrative Code § 9-112, providing that members of respondent's uniformed force charged with a crime may be suspended without pay for as long as the criminal charges remain pending, and that legislative history is therefore irrelevant as an aid in its interpretation ( 173 Misc.2d 650). Denial of leave to intervene was a proper exercise of discretion, notwithstanding the correction officers' interest in the matter and the court's broad power to grant such relief in an article 78 proceeding ( see, Matter of Greater N.Y. Health Care Facilities Assn. v. DeBuono, 91 N.Y.2d 716, 720), since the purported collective bargaining agreement that the correction officers wish to challenge as ineffective to bring them within the savings clause of section 76 (4) ( see, Seabrook v. Jacobson, 970 F. Supp. 252, 263-264, vacated on other grounds 153 F.3d 70) affects only respondent's rank and file, not its captains, such as the individual petitioner, and its adjudication in this proceeding would have prejudicially delayed the determination as to the individual petitioner, who had already been suspended without pay for over a year.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ. [ See, 173 Misc.2d 650.]