Crow v. Ambach
| Decision Date | 14 July 1983 |
| Citation | 465 N.Y.S.2d 71,96 A.D.2d 642 |
| Parties | , 12 Ed. Law Rep. 481 In the Matter of Henry A. CROW, Appellant, v. Gordon M. AMBACH, as Commissioner of the New York State Education Department, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David M. Purcell, Albany, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. , for respondents.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 21, 1983 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul the termination of his employment and for reinstatement to his position as school bus driver instructional specialist.
In January, 1982, respondent Ambach, for budgetary reasons, abolished petitioner's position as "school bus driver instructional specialist" but retained respondents Harry Beach and William Northrup in their positions as "school bus driver safety program specialists". Special Term found respondent Ambach's decision to do away with petitioner's position was rationally based and rejected a plea to annul that determination. We affirm.
Essentially, petitioner makes two arguments, neither of which is convincing. Initially, it is urged that "instructional specialists" and "safety program specialists" are the "same or similar positions" within the meaning of section 80 (subd. 1) of the Civil Service Law and, therefore, Beach or Northrup, each of whom possessed less seniority, should have been terminated instead of petitioner. As we recently observed in Matter of Piekielniak v. Axelrod, 92 A.D.2d 968, 970, 460 N.Y.S.2d 836, respondent Civil Service Commission has long interpreted the phrase "same or similar positions" to mean posts with the same title. Since this interpretation falls within the commission's special expertise and is rationally based, we are obliged to honor it. Furthermore, it is not without significance that the job description for each of these titles is different (see Matter of Sanger v. Greene, 269 N.Y. 33, 43, 198 N.E. 622), as are the minimum qualifications required for appointment.
The thrust of petitioner's other argument is that the decision to terminate him was made in bad faith because respondent Ambach offered only the "bare allegation" that the elimination of his position was the result of a decrease in funds received by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Razzano v. Remsenburg–Speonk UFSD
... ... City of Plattsburgh, 49 A.D.3d 1020, 1021, 853 N.Y.S.2d 227 ; Matter of Crow v. Ambach, 96 A.D.2d 642, 642, 465 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; Matter of Christian v. Casey, 76 A.D.2d 835, 836, 428 N.Y.S.2d 317 ). Here, we agree with the ... ...
-
Rosenthal v. Gilroy
... ... the validity of such an act has the burden of proving that the employer did not act in good faith in abolishing the position (see, Matter of Crow v. Ambach, 96 A.D.2d 642, 465 N.Y.S.2d 71; Matter of Connolly v. Carey, 80 A.D.2d 936, 437 N.Y.S.2d 768). Bad faith may be demonstrated by ... ...
-
Young v. Supervisor of Town of Lloyd
... ... Meehan, 112 A.D.2d 935, 936, 492 N.Y.S.2d 453, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 613, 499 N.Y.S.2d 679, 490 N.E.2d 546; Matter of Crow v. Ambach, 96 A.D.2d 642, 465 N.Y.S.2d 71). Accordingly, whether respondents abolished petitioner's position and whether such was effected in good ... ...
-
McDermott v. New York State Office of Mental Health, AFL-CIO
...long-standing interpretation of "the phrase 'same or similar positions' to mean posts with the same title" (Matter of Crow v. Ambach, 96 A.D.2d 642, 465 N.Y.S.2d 71; see, Matter of Piekielniak v. Axelrod, 92 A.D.2d 968, 970, 460 N.Y.S.2d 836, lv. denied, 59 N.Y.2d 603, 463 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 45......