Rosen v. McCoy
Opinion of the Court
Petitioners, competitive class law stenographers employed in the Supreme Court, Kings County, who passed competitive examinations for such positions, apply for a judgment vacating and annulling respondent McCoy’s designation of three other persons to that title without benefit of a competitive examination, and for related relief. Two of the three were noncompetitive typewriter operators, one typing jury lists and the other (now retired) in the stenographic pool. The third, an exempt confidential secretary, also typed jury lists. After audit, the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference reclassified these three persons as competitive class law stenographers, contrary to its own title specifications for such position. Typing jury lists is not appropriate to the job specification “ law stenographer ”, particularly when no stenographic duties are performed. Moreover, the reclassification was not a .general reclassification which affected equally all job titles and persons similarly situated, as required. That the reclassification was selective is evidenced by the fact that another typewriter operator, and a confidential secretarial assistant who is also a stenographer, both of whom also type jury lists, were not reclassified. This constitutes a sufficient basis to vacate the reclassification as arbitrary and capricious.
The job of law stenographer is a position requiring appropriate skills, tested by examination. There is no showing it
This has nothing to do with designating some typewriter operators and confidential secretaries as law stenographers without competitive examination.
“ Reclassification may not be used as a vehicle or method to promote civil service employees without examination. (N. Y. Const., art V, § 6.) ” (Matter of McNamara v. McCoy, 36 A D 2d 787, 788.) The Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York “ cannot appoint or promote nonjudicial personnel to competitive positions in the civil service without the necessary examinations ”. (Matter of Goldstein v. Lang, 23 A D 2d 483, 485 [dissenting opn.], revd. on dissenting opn. 16 N Y 2d 735.)
The application is granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.