Reidy v. Connelie

• Decision Date: 18 June 1981
• Citation: 440 N.Y.S.2d 401,82 A.D.2d 986
• Parties: In the Matter of John REIDY et al., Appellants, v. William G. CONNELIE, as Superintendent of the Division of State Police of the State of New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 401

440 N.Y.S.2d 401

82 A.D.2d 986

In the Matter of John REIDY et al., Appellants, v. William G. CONNELIE, as Superintendent of the Division of State Police of the State of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

June 18, 1981.

Fenton & Young, Albany (Eric J. Fenton, Albany, of counsel), for appellants.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (John Q. Driscoll, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P. J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HERLIHY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 12, 1980 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' applications, in proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondent to appoint petitioners to the New York State Police.

With the enactment of Chapter 276 of the Laws of 1979, the functions and powers of the Long Island State Parkway Police and the Niagara State Parkway Police were transferred to the Division of State Police and its Superintendent. Section 2 of chapter 276 of the Laws of 1979 provided that:

* * * such employees who meet such standards * * * as may be established by the superintendent of state police, and who shall not have attained the age of fifty-five on or before December thirty-first, nineteen hundred seventy-eight, and who make application not later than ninety days following the date upon which this act shall become law, shall be transferred to and appointed members of the Division of State Police, on the effective date of the transfer of functions. (Emphasis added.)

Subdivision (b) of section 2, in pertinent part, provided:

Any employee eligible to make application for transfer pursuant to this section who fails either to do so or to do so within the time limits set forth in this section shall be deemed to have waived entitlement for such transfer. (Emphasis added.)

All of the petitioners herein, then members of the Long Island State Parkway Police or the Niagara State Parkway Police, took advantage of the opportunity to transfer to the Division of State Police (hereinafter Division) by timely filing applications therefor and submitting to the required physical examination. On December 24, 1979 each of the petitioners was advised, by letter from the Division, that he had failed to meet the eligibility requirements for membership in the Division, but no specific reasons for the determination were set forth. Only after Herculean efforts, on the part of petitioners and others acting in their behalf, were petitioners able to arrange for a meeting with the Superintendent and his staff for the purpose of ascertaining the reason or reasons for the determination. At that December 31, 1979 meeting, petitioners individually met with the Superintendent. At these meetings, the Superintendent merely referred to powers granted him under subdivision 2 of chapter 276 of the Laws of 1979 and recited a brief conclusory statement as to why each petitioner was unacceptable. No opportunity was afforded petitioners to inquire as to the basis for the conclusion, nor were they permitted to present any evidence to refute it. As a result, separate article 78 proceedings were commenced by each petitioner seeking review of respondent's denials of transfer upon the ground that they were arbitrary and capricious and constituted denials of due process. Special Term, relying entirely upon Matter of Shedlock v. Connelie (66 A.D.2d 433, 414 N.Y.S.2d 55, affd. 48 N.Y.2d 943, 425 N.Y.S.2d 95, 401 N.E.2d 217), found that there was a rational basis for the denials and dismissed the petitions. This appeal ensued.

In cases of this nature, no one can establish his right to relief for denial of due process without first demonstrating that he possesses a protected property interest. "Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent...