Matter of Bridgman v. Kern
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wolfson v. Poston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1972)
- Resnick v. Civil Service Commission (Conn. 1968)
- Merlino v. Schneider (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- State Ex Rel. Paynter v. Marion Cty. Sup. Ct., Rm. No. 5 (Ind. 1976)
- Weissbard v. Kaplan (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Pearl v. New York State Department of Civil Service (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- Civil Service Commission v. Frazzini (Colo. 1955)
- Sullivan v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1955)
- Luxenberg v. Stichman (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Gilburt v. Kroll (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Dowling v. Brennan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Haynes v. Brennan (New York Supreme Court 1954)
- Burke v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1951)
- State Ex Rel. Kos v. Adamson (Minn. 1948)
- Matter of Borodkin v. Kern (N.Y. 1941)
- Kanen v. Kern (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1940)
- Borodkin v. Kern (New York Supreme Court 1940)
- Quinn v. Streeter (New York Supreme Court 1940)
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
We are of opinion that the technical oral examination was invalid for these reasons: (1) The direction that the “ examiners should fail not less than about one-half the total group of candidates ” was improper; (2) the instruction that the examiners adjust their ratings after consultation violated the civil service rule that “ Each subject shall be rated by two examiners acting separately ” (Rules of Municipal Civil Service Commission [New York City], rule 5, § 5, ¶ 1); (3) commentaries elicited from candidates were so vague or remote in character and broad in scope that the ratings in respect of “ soundness of the position taken ” disclosed only the unsupported conclusions of the examiners. (Cf. Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367.)
We have not considered other matters referred to by the court below.
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.