Brooklyn Audit Co. v. Department of Taxation & Finance
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Doe v. State Ethics Commission (Haw. 1972)
- Flynn v. State Ethics Commission (N.Y. 1995)
- Frederick v. Combs (Ky. Ct. App. 1962)
- Murray v. Town of N. Castle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- State v. Mugrage (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- City School District of the City of New York v. McGraham (N.Y. 2011)
- Figueroa v. New York Thruway Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- De Martino v. Weil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Senise v. Corcoran (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- Borges v. McGuire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Maine Sugar of Montezuma, Inc. v. Wickham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1971)
- Formoso v. Kennedy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
- Baker v. Kennedy (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- Whalen v. Corsi (New York Supreme Court 1951)
- Flood v. Monaghan (New York Supreme Court 1951)
- Delia v. Valentine (New York Supreme Court 1945)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The resignation of the income tax examiner in the Department of Taxation and Finance during the pendency of charges brought pursuant to section 22 of the Civil Service Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 7) does not ter *286 minate the proceeding. If the facts were that the only-result of the proceeding would be removal from office, and that nothing survived a resignation, then the latter might terminate the proceeding, a continuation of which would be futile. In the case at bar, however, if a person is removed from the civil service, as distinguished from resigning, he may be disqualified by the Civil Service Commission from holding further office under the civil service (Civil Service Law, § 14; Buies for Classified Civil Service, rule 9, subd. 4). To permit the resignation to terminate the proceeding would deprive the Civil Service Commission of the right to disqualify the offending employee from holding further office in the civil service. The purpose of a proceeding under section 22 of the Civil Service Law, therefore, is not consummated by the mere withdrawal of the examiner from the position which he has occupied.
It follows that the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman and O’Brien, JJ., concur; Hubbs, Loughran and Bifpey, JJ., dissent.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.