Hurley v. Bd. of Educ. of New York
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | LEHMAN |
| Citation | 270 N.Y. 275,200 N.E. 818 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1936 |
| Parties | HURLEY v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK (FAASE et al., Interveners). |
270 N.Y. 275
200 N.E. 818
HURLEY
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK (FAASE et al., Interveners).
Court of Appeals of New York.
March 3, 1936.
Action by Blanche Hurley against the Board of Education of the City of New York, wherein Rosemary Faase and another intervened. From an order of the Appellate Division, First Department (244 App.Div. 788, 280 N.Y.S. 966), unanimously affirming an order of the Special Term (153 Misc. 726, 276 N.Y.S. 35), denying plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Board of Education from making appointments of attendance officers from certain eligible lists and granting motions by defendants for a dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Judgments reversed.
[200 N.E. 819]
[270 N.Y. 276]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Harry A. Gordon and Eric C. Gordon, both of New York City, for appellant.
Austin B. Mandel and Henry Ross, both of New York City, for respondents Rosemary Faase and Elizabeth McMullen.
LEHMAN, Judge.
On May 25, 1928, an eligible list for the position of attendance officers of the board of education was prepared after competitive examination. The statute at that time provided that the list should not remain in [270 N.Y. 278]force more than three years. In the interval other examinations for the same position might be held and eligible lists prepared whenever necessary, but ‘eligible lists shall not be merged and one eligible list shall be exhausted before nominations are made from a list of subsequent date.’ Education Law, § 871, Consol. Laws, c. 16. In 1931, before the expiration of three years from the date when the elgible list was prepared, and while that list was still in force, the statute was amended (Laws 1931, c. 538) to provide that the list should remain in force for another year.
In October, 1931, a new examination for the same position was held and a new eligible list, based on that examination, was prepared and published on July 8, 1932. The old list, prepared in May, 1928, had become inoperative in May, 1932, and the list published on July 8, 1932, was the only list then in force. In April, 1933 (Laws 1933, c. 146), the Legislature added a new section to the Education Law as follows: Ԥ 871-b. Notwithstanding any provision contained in this chapter to the contrary, in a city having a population of one million or more, the term of eligibility of the eligible list of candidates for appointment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deas v. Levitt
...Board of Educ., 272 N.Y. 341, 345-346, 6 N.E.2d 47; Ciaccia v. Board of Educ., 271 N.Y. 336, 339, 3 N.E.2d 446; Hurley v. Board of Educ., 270 N.Y. 275, 280, 200 N.E. 818). In Hurley, the seminal case [73 N.Y.2d 530] on the subject, the Legislature passed a law which sought to revive an expi......
-
McMenemy v. City of Rochester, No. 94-CV-6289.
...of appointment. (See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548. In Hurley v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 270 N.Y. 275, 200 N.E. 818), we said, in a different context: "It is not disputed that it is practicable to ascertain merit and fitness for the position o......
-
Deas v. Levitt
...standard has been established by the United States Supreme Court. Further, contrary to what was at issue in Hurley v. Board of Education, 270 N.Y. 275, 200 N.E. 818, wherein the Court of Appeals held that a defunct list may not constitutionally be revived, petitioner in the instant matter i......
-
Kirkland v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, Nos. 828
...Others may, then, be better prepared and more fit to fill a position than those who are upon the list." Hurley v. Board of Education, 270 N.Y. 275, 280, 200 N.E. 818 (1936). Although the employees represented by amici are not currently on any eligibility list, they may compete for promotion......
-
McMenemy v. City of Rochester, No. 94-CV-6289.
...of appointment. (See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548. In Hurley v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 270 N.Y. 275, 200 N.E. 818), we said, in a different context: "It is not disputed that it is practicable to ascertain merit and fitness for the posit......
-
Deas v. Levitt
...Board of Educ., 272 N.Y. 341, 345-346, 6 N.E.2d 47; Ciaccia v. Board of Educ., 271 N.Y. 336, 339, 3 N.E.2d 446; Hurley v. Board of Educ., 270 N.Y. 275, 280, 200 N.E. 818). In Hurley, the seminal case [73 N.Y.2d 530] on the subject, the Legislature passed a law which sought to revive an expi......
-
Deas v. Levitt
...standard has been established by the United States Supreme Court. Further, contrary to what was at issue in Hurley v. Board of Education, 270 N.Y. 275, 200 N.E. 818, wherein the Court of Appeals held that a defunct list may not constitutionally be revived, petitioner in the instant matter i......
-
Kirkland v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, Nos. 828
...Others may, then, be better prepared and more fit to fill a position than those who are upon the list." Hurley v. Board of Education, 270 N.Y. 275, 280, 200 N.E. 818 (1936). Although the employees represented by amici are not currently on any eligibility list, they may compete for prom......