New York Court of Appeals, 1963

Acosta v. Lang

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 30, 1963

13 N.Y.2d 1079; 196 N.E.2d 60

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Lee v. Roche (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Benz v. Walker (Conn. 1966)
Oback v. Nadel (N.Y. 1982)
Mancuso v. Levitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Mancuso v. Levitt (New York Supreme Court 1992)
White v. Ortiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Shelton v. Costelloe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Esposito v. Nadel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Mundy v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission (N.Y. 1978)
Alonge v. Carnavale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Altamore v. Barrios-Paoli (N.Y. 1997)
Howe v. Barrios-Paoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Goldberg v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
DiNatale v. Levitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Allen v. Ortiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Wright v. New York State Education Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Hasper v. Ortiz (New York Supreme Court 1986)
Blessinger v. Ortiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Esposito v. Nadel (N.Y. 1983)
Carroll v. Ortiz (New York Supreme Court 1983)
Hotto v. Macchiarola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Greeley v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Beth Israel North Housing Co. v. Berman (New York Supreme Court 1982)
Breheny v. Roche (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Dougherty v. Bahou (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)

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

Memorandum. Special Term ordered a trial to determine whether the commission’s choice of best answers to questions Nos. 1, 46, 54, 77 and 93 was so arbitrary as to violate petitioners’ rights. The Appellate Division, however, held that *1081there was no triable issue. On appeal to this court petitioners ask no more than that the Special Term order be reinstated and a trial be held. We cannot, therefore, go further although it is arguable that the questions themselves are on their face inexact and inappropriate and that the commissi on was purely arbitrary in its choice of “best” answers. Petitioner is not required to show that there is no reasonable basis for the key answer selected by the commission, but merely that the answer given by the candidate on the test is better or at least as good as the key answer. Where there are two equally acceptable answers to a question, the selection of one as the correct answer must be deemed to be the result of an arbitrary decision (Matter of Fink v. Finegan, 270 N. Y. 356; Matter of Gruner v. McNamara, 298 N. Y. 395). A hearing to determine such an issue does not constitute an interference with the discretion committed to the commission but merely serves to keep that body within the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction (N. Y. Const., art. V, § 6). Notwithstanding the limitations on the review of administrative action, the power nonetheless exists and should be exercised in an appropriate case. This is such a case. (See, also, Matter of Blumenthal v. Morton, 273 App. Div. 497, affd. 298 N. Y. 563.)

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Yan Yoorhis, Burke, Foster and Scilepfi concur.

Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term reinstated, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.