Opinion
November 13, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
Defendant has demonstrated that the maximum age limitation for appointment of New York City police officers (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 14-109) bears a rational relation ship to legitimate purposes and, therefore, suffers from no infirmity under the State and Federal Equal Protection Clauses (see, Timerman v. Bence, 176 A.D.2d 1220). The age limitation, contained in a special law, has not been impliedly repealed by the general City and State Human Rights Laws (Administrative Code § 8-107 [a]; Executive Law § 296 [a]; see, Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 83 N.Y.2d 215, 222-223). Plaintiffs did not suffer a deprivation of due process by virtue of defendant's failure to include the age limitation on the notice of examination, because passing the examination did not confer a right to appointment (Civil Service Law § 61; Matter of Cassidy v. Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn., 37 N.Y.2d 526).
We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.