Figueroa v. Bronstein
| Decision Date | 12 February 1976 |
| Citation | 344 N.E.2d 402,38 N.Y.2d 533,381 N.Y.S.2d 470 |
| Parties | , 344 N.E.2d 402, 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 391, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,808 In the Matter of William FIGUEROA, Appellant, v. Harry I. BRONSTEIN, as Director of the New York City Department of Personnel and Chairman of the New York City Civil Service Commission, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Michael D. Hampden and Charles J. Tejada, New York City, for appellant.
W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Murray L. Lewis, New York City, and L. Kevin Sheridan, Manhasset, of counsel), for respondents.
We hold that the action of the State Civil Service Commission establishing 32 years as the maximum age for application for appointment as correction officer is not violative of constitutional provision.
Section 6 of article V, of our State Constitution provides in part: 'Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state and all of the civil divisions thereof, including cities a villages, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive (with exceptions not here applicable)'. This mandate in favor of appointment and promotion according to merit and fitness does not, however, preclude the adoption of age requirements. (Matter of Deodati v. Kern, 280 N.Y. 366, 21 N.E.2d 355; Matter of Thomas v. Kern, 280 N.Y. 236, 244, 20 N.E.2d 738, 740.) Nothing in Matter of Maye v. Lindsay, 69 Misc.2d 276, 330 N.Y.S.2d 14, revd. 41 A.D.2d 127, 341 N.Y.S.2d 371, revd. 33 N.Y.2d 552, 347 N.Y.S.2d 439, 301 N.E.2d 425, cert. den. 414 U.S. 1069, 94 S.Ct. 579, 38 L.Ed.2d 474 holds to the contrary.
Nor does the adoption of age requirements necessarily offend the equal protection clause. Because a right finds expression in the language of our State Constitution, it does not follow that by that circumstance alone it is a right entitled to special constitutional protection, statutory limitation of which must be examined under the strict scrutiny test on claims of denial of equal protection. (Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41, 59--61, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1, 16--18, 340 N.E.2d 444, 455--456.) Appellant advances no other theory which would require application of the strict scrutiny test or anything approaching that standard (p. 61, 378 N.Y.S.2d p. 18, 340 N.E.2d p. 456). Thus, notwithstanding our constitutional provision with respect to appointment and promotion in the civil service, legislative classification of rights thereunder will be upheld if there is a rational basis therefor (cf. pp. 61--63, 378 N.Y.S.2d pp. 18--20, 340 N.E.2d pp....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alevy v. Downstate Medical Center
...90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L.Ed.2d 491; see Matter of Levy, 38 N.Y.2d 653, 382 N.Y.S.2d 13, 345 N.E.2d 556; Matter of Figueroa v. Bronstein, 38 N.Y.2d 533, 381 N.Y.S.2d 470, 344 N.E.2d 402; Gleason v. Gleason, 26 N.Y.2d 28, 308 N.Y.S.2d 347, 256 N.E.2d 513; Matter of Bauch v. City of New York,......
-
State Div. of Human Rights on Complaint of Geraci v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 1
...54 of the Civil Service Law in imposing a maximum age limit of 32 for New York City correction officers (Matter of Figueroa v. Bronstein, 38 N.Y.2d 533, 381 N.Y.S.2d 470, 344 N.E.2d 402, app. dsmd. 429 U.S. 806, 97 S.Ct. 41, 50 L.Ed.2d 67; see Knapp v. Monroe County Civ. Serv. Comm., 77 A.D......
-
Seelig v. Koehler
...use, of 'extraordinary physical effort' in the circumstances of their performance of service * * *." (Matter of Figueroa v. Bronstein, 38 N.Y.2d 533, 535, 381 N.Y.S.2d 470, 344 N.E.2d 402.) That effort, however, is adversely affected by drug use, which impairs not only physical performance,......
-
Donahue v. City of Boston
...new police officers); Sobieralski v. City of South Bend, 479 N.E.2d 98 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (same); Figueroa v. Bronstein, 38 N.Y.2d 533, 381 N.Y.S.2d 470, 344 N.E.2d 402 (N.Y.1976) (per curiam) (same with regard to an age limit of thirty-two); Ridaught v. Div. of Fla. Hwy. Patrol, 314 So.2d 1......