Whitehair v. Civil Service Com'n of Monroe County
| Decision Date | 18 February 1977 |
| Citation | 56 A.D.2d 711,392 N.Y.S.2d 583 |
| Parties | , 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 392 Tyrone WHITEHAIR, Appellant, v. The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lawrence P. Keller, Holley, for appellant.
William J. Stevens, Joseph T. Pilato, Rochester, for respondents.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs (see Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520; Matter of Figueroa v. Bronstein, 38 N.Y.2d 533, 381 N.Y.S.2d 470, 344 N.E.2d 402). (Appeal from Order of Monroe Supreme Court, Smith, J.--Summary Judgment.)
Present: MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, DILLON, GOLDMAN and WITMER, JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Feimer v. Ward
...for police officers covered by state civil service, have consistently been upheld in this state (see Whitehair v. Civil Service Comm. of Monroe County, 56 A.D.2d 711, 392 N.Y.S.2d 583; Matter of Hawkins v. Kohn, 64 A.D.2d 628, 406 N.Y.S.2d 546; Matter of Spina v. County of Chautauqua, 50 A.......
-
Kuczka v. Clark
...cannot agree that such an interpretation is compelled by the "plain meaning" of the statute. In Whitehair v. Civil Service Commission of Monroe County, 56 A.D.2d 711, 392 N.Y.S.2d 583, a case with facts similar to the instant one, the plaintiff took a police officer examination while he was......
-
Catanzaro v. City of Buffalo
...Comm., 77 A.D.2d 817, 437 N.Y.S.2d 136, lv. denied 51 N.Y.2d 708, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 414 N.E.2d 403; Whitehair v. Civil Serv. Comm. of Monroe County, 56 A.D.2d 711, 392 N.Y.S.2d 583). Accordingly, the judgment of Supreme Court, 143 Misc.2d 1054, 541 N.Y.S.2d 876, should be modified to dismi......
-
Knapp v. Monroe County Civil Service Com'n
...constitutionality of this section of the Civil Service Law and its age limits under challenge here in Whitehair v. Civil Serv. Comm. of Monroe County, 56 A.D.2d 711, 392 N.Y.S.2d 583. The issue merits no further We also hold that section 58 does not contravene the prohibition against age di......
Request a trial to view additional results