Caparco v. Kaplan

• Decision Date: 15 January 1964
• Parties: Application of William A. CAPARCO, John S. Gain and Thomas R. Toolan, as Members of and constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of Rochester, Appellants, v. H. Eliot KAPLAN, President, Mary Goode Krone, and Alexander Falk, as Members of and constituting the State Civil Service Commission of New York, and Joseph L. Guzzetta, Chairman, Roy F. Bush, Deane A. Keyes, Clarence J. Schoeneman and Albert A. Williams, as Members of and constituting the Monroe County Civil Service Commission, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 837

245 N.Y.S.2d 837

20 A.D.2d 212

Application of William A. CAPARCO, John S. Gain and Thomas

R. Toolan, as Members of and constituting the

Municipal Civil Service Commission of

the City of Rochester, Appellants, v. H. Eliot KAPLAN, President, Mary Goode Krone, and Alexander

Falk, as Members of and constituting the State Civil Service

Commission of New York, and Joseph L. Guzzetta, Chairman,

Roy F. Bush, Deane A. Keyes, Clarence J. Schoeneman and

Albert A. Williams, as Members of and constituting the

Monroe County Civil Service Commission, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Jan. 15, 1964.

Arthur B. Curran, Jr., Corporation Counsel, Rochester, for appellants (Jack Goodman, Albany, of counsel).

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, for respondents members of the New York State Civil Service Commission (Latimer B. Senior, Paxton Blair and Herbert H. Smith, Albany, of counsel).

Leo T. Minton, Monroe County Legal Advisor, Rochester, for respondents members of the Monroe County Civil Service Commission (Raymond H. Schwartz, Rochester, of counsel).

Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN and HENRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a controversy between County and Municipal governments concerning the administration of civil service in the City of Rochester. It began by the institution of an Article 78 (Civil Practice Act) proceeding by which the petitioners-appellants, who constituted the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of Rochester, sought an order '(a) annulling and setting aside the determination made by the respondent, the State Civil Service Commission, in which said respondent refused to accept for approval or disapproval the Rules of the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of Rochester adopted by the petitioners on April 5, 1962, and (b) compelling the respondent, the State Civil Service Commission, to approve said Rules, if satisfactory, pursuant to Section 20 of the Civil Service Law of New York, and (c) compelling the respondent, the Monroe County Civil Service Commission, to terminate its administration of the civil service in the City of Rochester and to turn over to the petitioners all the records pertaining to the civil service employees of the City of Rochester.'

In order to put this appeal in proper perspective it is necessary to give the background of the administration of civil service in the City and County prior to February 1961. Before that date both the City and the County had separate Civil Service Commissions, the City administering its Commission pursuant to the provisions of the City Charter. By Act of the State Legislature (Chapter 565 of the Laws of 1961, Optional County Government Law, Section 1008, effective April 12, 1961) an amendment was made to the Optional County Government Law to increase the membership of any civil service commission in a county having adopted the county manager form of government pursuant to plan 'B' and to provide that any city wholly within such county might withdraw from the municipal civil service commission and transfer its jurisdiction to county's civil service commission 'without restrictions relating to effective date'. It should be noted that Monroe County is the only one in the State which adopted and is operating under the county manager form of government pursuant to plan 'B' (cf. Matter of Dutcher v. Hatch, 19 A.D.2d 341, 243 N.Y.S. 80). Section 1008 provides that 'Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, if the council or other legislative body in a city wholly within a county which has adopted plan 'B' authorizes the withdrawal of the city from its existing form of civil service administration and elects that the provisions of the civil service law shall be administered in such city under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission of the county', it may do so pursuant to specific provisions as to composition, method of selection of commissioners and terms of office.

On December 12, 1961 the legislative body of the City (the Council) by Ordinance No. 61-506 elected to withdraw the civil service system from the administration of the City Civil Service Commission and transfer it to the Monroe County Civil Service Commission, pursuant to the authority granted by Section 1008 of the Optional County Government Law. Simultaneously therewith, the City Council enacted Local Law No. 7 abolishing the City Civil Service Commission, effective December 15, 1961, and transferring its members to the County Civil Service Commission. The City Council thereafter, on January 23, 1962, adopted Local Law No. 1 of 1962 (effective January 29, 1962) and Ordinance No. 62-18, by which it purported to revoke the action taken by the City Council on December 12, 1961, created a new City Civil Service Commission and provided for a re-transfer of the City civil service system to the re-activated City Civil Service Commission. This Commission adopted proposed rules and regulations, pursuant to Section 20 of the Civil Service Law, which the State Commission declined to accept upon the ground that under Section 1008 of the Optional County Government Law the City had no authority to establish the new Civil Service Commission. It is in this posture which the matter now comes before us.

The main thrust of appellants' position is that Section 1008 of the Optional County Government Law is in violation of Article IX, Section 11 of the State Constitution and that this contention involves three subsidiary issues:

1. Was the law an act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any city within the meaning of Article IX, Section 11?

2. Was it a local law within the meaning of Article IX, Section 11 in that it did not apply alike to all cities?

3. If it is a local law applying only to Rochester and concerns its property, affairs or government did the Legislature receive a proper Home Rule request from the Mayor of the City of Rochester concurred in by the Common Council as required by Article IX, Section 11?

We find it unnecessary to reach or pass upon these issues, as a further contention of appellants, hereinafter discussed, is dispositive of the appeal. This further contention of appellants is that, even if Section 1008 is constitutional, the City possessed the right, pursuant to City Home Rule Law, § 11, subd. 1, to take the legislative action it did in revoking the transfer of civil service administration from City to County and in re-creating the Municipal Civil Service Commission. So far as its application is pertinent here that Section of the City Home Rule Law provides: '1. Subject to the restrictions provided in this chapter, the local legislative body of a city shall have a power to adopt and amend (a) local laws in relation to the property, affairs or government of the city * * *. Local laws adopted pursuant to (a) or (b) of this subdivision may change or supersede any provision of an act of the legislature theretofore enacted which provision does not in terms and effect apply alike to all cities.'

Respondents urge, in answer to appellants' contention, that Section 1008 of the Optional County Government Law does not relate to property, affairs or government of the City of Rochester and that the Home Rule Law is not applicable. Civil service, they assert, is a matter of paramount State concern and relates to matters other than the property, affairs or government of the City of Rochester. In our view, the administration of civil service is not capable of such precise classification. It is true that any issue substantially affecting the merit system is a...