Sanchez v. Town of Brookhaven

• Decision Date: 16 August 1962
• Citation: 232 N.Y.S.2d 238
• Parties: Application of Jose SANCHEZ, Jr. v. TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN et al.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 238

232 N.Y.S.2d 238

Application of Jose SANCHEZ, Jr. v. TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN et al.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County.

Aug. 16, 1962.

Harold L. Herzstein, New York City, for petitioner.

Schmidt & Fechter, Patchogue, for respondents.

HENRY M. ZALESKI, Justice.

By this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks a review of his dismissal by the respondents from his position as buyer, an order of reinstatement and other relief.

In June, 1961, petitioner took and passed a written competitive examination for the position of buyer. After having been certified as eligible for the position he was duly appointed and employed on December 6, 1961 for a probationary term. On January 3, 1962, the Town Clerk wrote to petitioner advising him that at the Town Board meeting of January 2, he was appointed a Buyer at a salary of $5500. annually. Petitioner's initial appointment had been at the rate of $5360. annually. By letter dated January 25, 1962, but not received by petitioner until January 26, 1962, respondent advised petitioner that his employment would be discontinued as of February 1, 1962. The letter of discharge did not state any reason for discontinuance of employment. It simply advised petitioner that in 'discussing this matter with Mr. Lang, he feels that your services as a buyer should not be continued.' Petitioner continued working after receiving the letter of discharge until and including January 31, 1962. On February 1, 1962 and on the discharge of petitioner respondent hired one Doris Quinn as purchasing assistant at a salary of $3600. annually. The foregoing facts are not in dispute.

Petitioner has assigned many reasons why the respondents' actions should be reversed. However, the Court finds that two of the grounds relating to alleged violations of Rule XVII of the local Civil Service Rules are sufficient and the petitioner is sustained on those grounds.

Section 63 of the Civil Service Law provides that original appointments in the competitive class be for a probationary term to be fixed by the local Civil Service Commissions. The Suffolk County Commission has fixed that period at not less than eight and not more than twenty-six weeks. (Rule XVII, subd. 1(a) of the Rules of the Suffolk County Civil Service Commission.) The purpose of the probationary period has been stated to be to give the appointing authority an opportunity to appraise the employee's ability and to give the employee an opportunity to prove himself capable of performing the job (Application of Going, 5 A.D.2d 173, 170 N.Y.S.2d 234; Application of Gribbin, 7 Misc.2d 479, 163 N.Y.S.2d 304; Dornfest v. Hilliard, 200 Misc. 649, 107 N.Y.S.2d 303). These objects are of equal importance (See People ex rel. Kastor v. Kearny, 49 App.Div. 125, 62 N.Y.S. 1097).

Rule XVII, in subdivision 5 of the said Rules, imposes certain burdens on job supervisors and appointing authorities with respect to probationary employees. Thus, the job supervisor must advise the probationer 'from time to time * * * of his status and progress.' If termination is contemplated because of unsatisfactory service, the probationer 'shall receive written notice at least one...