Adelman v. Bahou, 1
| Decision Date | 31 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 85 A.D.2d 862,446 N.Y.S.2d 500 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Dennis ADELMAN et al., Appellants, v. Victor S. BAHOU, Individually and as President of the State of New York Civil Service Commission, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding) In the Matter of James O. DOBSON et al., Appellants, v. Victor S. BAHOU et al., Constituting the Civil Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joan Goldberg, New York City, for Dennis Adelman et al.
Harris, Beach, Wilcox, Rubin & Levy, Rochester (David C. Boysen, Rochester, of counsel), for James O. Dobson et al.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (John Q. Driscoll, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for Victor S. Bahou.
Before SWEENEY, J. P., and MAIN, CASEY, MIKOLL and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeal (in Proceeding No. 1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 5, 1981 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of the Civil Service Commission denying petitioners' request, after a hearing, for reclassification of their positions in the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and to enjoin respondents from holding certain promotional examinations.
Appeal (in Proceeding No. 2) from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Pitt, J.), entered March 5, 1981 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of the Civil Service Commission denying petitioners' request, after a hearing, for reclassification of their positions in the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
In both proceedings herein, petitioners are employees of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (department) and respondents are the Civil Service Commission (commission) and the department. The essential facts are not in dispute and apply to both proceedings.
Prior to 1977, the department was organized along specialty lines consisting of an income tax bureau, a corporation tax bureau, sales tax bureau and so on. Each of the bureaus was a complete operating unit in itself, performing taxpayer audits, processing returns, collecting taxes and providing various taxpayer services. In 1973, a reorganization of the department along functional lines was begun, with all collection activities being transferred to a tax compliance bureau. In 1975, a tax appeals bureau was created and thereafter an audit division, a taxpayer services division and a processing division were established.
As part of the reorganization, a title structure change affecting the Tax Examiner series was made in September, 1977. This title structure change was in name only and involved no change in the duties of the employees in the renamed positions. Those Tax Examiners who had been primarily engaged in field auditing became Tax Auditors, assigned to the audit division. The former Senior Sales Tax Examiner, Grade 18, became a Sales Tax Auditor I, Grade 18, and so forth.
More substantial changes, involving qualifications and duties, were introduced by the department beginning in December, 1977 when it applied to the commission's division of classification and compensation to reclassify the Tax Auditor series. The entry-level "journeyman" auditor position, formerly Grade 14, became Tax Auditor I, Grade 18. A new entry-level position of Trainee, Grade 14, was established, with the trainee advancing to Tax Auditor I, Grade 18, without further examination, upon satisfactory completion of two years of training. Incumbent Grade 14's, as they completed two years of training, were to be moved to Grade 18. Incumbent Tax Auditors I, Grade 18, had served as both field auditors and as the immediate, first-level supervisors of three to six journeymen auditors (referred to as a squad). After reclassification, the Tax Auditor I served primarily as a journeyman auditor. Incumbent Tax Auditors II, Grade 23, who formerly were second-level supervisors of two or more squads, became the first-level supervisors of a group of journeymen auditors (now referred to as a team). Similarly, incumbent Tax Auditors III, Grade 27, became the second-level supervisors of two or more teams.
Petitioners, in Proceeding No. 1, are Sales Tax Auditors I, Grade 18 (former Senior Sales Tax Examiners, Grade 18) and Sales Tax Auditors II, Grade 23 (former Associate Sales Tax Examiners, Grade 23). Petitioners, in Proceeding No. 2, are Tax Auditors in the same two positions in the income, sales and excise tax specialties. All petitioners seek reclassification to the next higher grade--Grade 18 to Grade 23, and Grade 23 to Grade 27, respectively.
In June, 1978, petitioners in both proceedings made application to the director of classification and compensation for upward reclassification of their positions without examination pursuant to subdivision 2 (formerly subdivision 4) of section 132 of the Civil Service Law. After a hearing before the the director of classification and compensation, petitioners' applications were denied. Petitioners appealed to the commission. After an eight-day hearing in February, 1980, the hearing officer reported his findings of fact. Thereafter, the commission, in a written decision, dismissed both appeals. Petitioners then commenced these article 78 proceedings. Special Term issued written decisions in each proceeding and dismissed the petitions by orders entered March 5, 1981. These appeals ensued.
Special Term properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. County of Nassau
...Law and Rules (McKinney 1981). See, e.g., Burke v. Axelrod, 90 A.D.2d 577, 456 N.Y.S.2d 135 (3d Dept.1982); Adelman v. Bahou, 85 A.D.2d 862, 446 N.Y.S.2d 500 (3d Dept.1981) app. denied 56 N.Y.2d 502, 450 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 435 N.E.2d 1099 (1982); Adams v. Krone, 43 Misc.2d 751, 252 N.Y.S.2d 360......
-
Conrad v. Hackett
...(CPLR 7803[3]; see generally, Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board, 1 N.Y.2d 508, 154 N.Y.S.2d 849, 136 N.E.2d 827; Adelman v. Bahou, 85 A.D.2d 862, 446 N.Y.S.2d 500; Douglas v. Miller, 55 Misc.2d 303, 285 N.Y.S.2d 174, aff'd. 31 A.D.2d 889, 298 N.Y.S.2d 911.) Specifically, an agency's in......
-
Kirkland v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, s. 828
...an abuse of discretion. Burke v. Sugarman, 35 N.Y.2d 39, 42, 358 N.Y.S.2d 715, 315 N.E.2d 772 (1974); Adelman v. Bahou, 85 A.D.2d 582, 583, 446 N.Y.S.2d 500, 502-03 (3d Dep't 1981). This right intervenors exercised in the district 3. Race-Conscious Promotional Appointments. The race-conscio......
-
O'Neill v. Pfau
...N.Y.S.2d 127 [3d Dept. 2001]; Matter of Hansen v. Schneider, 141 A.D.2d 823, 529 N.Y.S.2d 884 [2d Dept. 1988]; Adelman v. Bahou, 85 A.D.2d 862, 446 N.Y.S.2d 500 [3d Dept. 1981] ). Moreover, since the record before this Court demonstrates that unlike the NYS Court Officer title, the NYS Cour......