Agress v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 16 February 1982 |
| Citation | 86 A.D.2d 869,447 N.Y.S.2d 305 |
| Parties | , 2 Ed. Law Rep. 1139 In the Matter of Jack D. AGRESS, et al., Respondents, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath and Leonard Koerner, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Benjamin M. Zelman, P. C., New York City, for respondents.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and WEINSTEIN, GULOTTA and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 20, 1980, which, inter alia, directed appellant Board of Education of the City of New York to appoint petitioners as supervisors of education of the physically handicapped, with tenure.
Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits.
Petitioners, who were assigned in 1974 to positions as interim acting supervisors of education of the physically handicapped, brought this proceeding to compel the Board of Education of the City of New York (board) to appoint them to permanent positions as supervisors with tenure and back pay. Although they had passed a licensing examination, their opportunities for appointments were restricted as a result of the decision in Chance v. Board of Examiners, 330 F.Supp. 203, affd. 458 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir.) which held that the examination administered to candidates for supervisory positions in the New York City school system had a discriminatory effect, and preliminarily enjoined the further administration of those examinations and the promulgation of eligibility lists based upon them. Pending development of a new nondiscriminatory selection process for supervisory personnel, an interim selection process was adopted for making permanent appointments to supervisory positions.
Petitioners were among those who were eligible to be considered for permanent appointment under this interim selection process, by virtue of their having passed the above noted examination and being placed on an eligibility list. In addition to such qualifications, the selection process also encompassed, inter alia, screening of applications and interviews by a committee, and selection from a list of "final" candidates by the Community School Board or the Chancellor.
Petitioners, although eligible, never went through this interim selection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montero v. Lum
...31 N.Y.2d 468, 341 N.Y.S.2d 441, 293 N.E.2d 819; Matter of Hilsenrad v. Miller, 284 N.Y. 445, 31 N.E.2d 895; Matter of Agress v. Board of Educ., 86 A.D.2d 869, 447 N.Y.S.2d 305, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 755, 454 N.Y.S.2d 989, 440 N.E.2d 1336). 4 Nor can an appointee's successful completion of the qu......
-
Purvis v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York
...appointment under these circumstances, regardless of the duration of his service in that position (see, Matter of Agress v. Board of Educ., 86 A.D.2d 869, 447 N.Y.S.2d 305, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 755, 454 N.Y.S.2d 989, 440 N.E.2d 1336; see also, Matter of Board of Educ. v. Nyquist, 31 N.Y.2d 468, ......
-
Morley v. Arricale
...cannot be subverted without violating Article V, § 6 of the New York State Constitution (see Matter of Agress v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 869, 447 N.Y.S.2d 305, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 755, 454 N.Y.S.2d 989, 440 N.E.2d Petitioner finally contends that the actions of the......
-
Agress v. Board of Education of the City of New York
...pursuant to Rule 500.2(b), order affirmed, with costs for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (86 A.D.2d 869, 447 N.Y.S.2d 305). COOKE, C.J., and JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER, JJ., GABRIELLI, J., took no part. ...