Hurley v. Bd. of Educ. of New York

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtLEHMAN
Citation270 N.Y. 275,200 N.E. 818
Decision Date03 March 1936
PartiesHURLEY 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.

270 N.Y. 277]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 of City of New York.
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
58 practice notes
  • Deas v. Levitt
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1989
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • September 14, 1999
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 28, 1988
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 8, 1983
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • McMenemy v. City of Rochester, No. 94-CV-6289.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • September 14, 1999
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • May 4, 1989
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 28, 1988
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 8, 1983
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT