Ciaccia v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York

• Decision Date: 08 July 1936
• Citation: 3 N.E.2d 446,271 N.Y. 336
• Parties: CIACCIA v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK (HANLEY et al., Interveners).
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

271 N.Y. 336

3 N.E.2d 446

CIACCIA

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK (HANLEY et al., Interveners).

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 8, 1936.

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by Louis Ciaccia against the Board of Education of the City of New York, wherein William C. Hanley and others intervened. From a judgment of the Special Term of the Supreme Court denying a motion by plaintiff for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, Board of Education of the City of New York, from making civil service appointments of supervising attendance officer from a certain eligible list, and granting a motion by defendants for a dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiff appeals on constitutional grounds.

Reversed, and prayer for permanent injunction granted. Harry A. Gordon and Eric C. Gordon, both of New York City, for appellant.

Paul Windels, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Paxton Blair and Seymour B. Quel, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent Board of Education.

Austin B. Mandel, of New York City, for respondent William C. Hanley.

A. Spencer Feld, of New York City, for respondent May V. McSweeney.

A. Mark Levien, of New York City, amicus curiae for New York Teachers' Guild.

Joshua S. Chinitz, of New York City, amicus curiae for Teachers Union of City of New York.

CRANE, Chief Judge.

In Hurley v. Board of Education of City of New York, 270 N.Y. 275, 200 N.E. 818, we decided in March of this year that section 871-b of the Education Law (Consol.Laws, c. 16), which extended the eligible lists in force May 15, 1932, for four years, was violative of section 6 of article 5 of the State Constitution and void. At the time of the enactment of the statute the lists in effect May 15, 1932, had been superseded by new lists based upon new examinations and we said that the Legislature was without power to command that appointments be made from the old eligible lists which were no longer in force. We expressed these conclusions in the following language: ‘Preference among those qualified for a position must be determined solely by relative standing upon the eligible list then in force. Favor must be excluded. It is not excluded when without a new examination the Legislature commands that appointments must be made from an eligible list then not in force before appointments can be made from a list which is in force.’ 270 N.Y. 275, at page 280, 200 N.E. 818, 820. In that case, after examination and the preparation of the new list of those eligible for appointment or promotion, the Legislature attempted to extend the old list.

In the case now before us the old list had expired. Some months thereafter the Legislature extended the old list; a new list was then in the process of formation, but was not completed until after the passage of the extending act. We are of the opinion that this difference in detail and dates does not take this case from under the principle enunciated in the Hurley Case which was, that after a list had expired, had come to an end, ceased to exist, so that there were no persons capable of appointment, pursuant to the civil service provisions, the Legislature was without power to confer eligibility or give preference in appointment or promotion. The previous list, the result of competitive examination, being dead, could not be resurrected by legislative command.

We have not questioned the right of the Legislature to extend the lists before they expire for a limited and reasonable time. Most of these questions of legislative power center around the reasonableness or the degree and extent of its exercise. When the Constitution directs that appointments and promotions to office in the civil service of the state and in all the civil...