New York Court of Appeals, 1978

Matter of Tanzosh v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 8, 1978 · Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur in Memorandum

44 N.Y.2d 906; 44 N.Y. 906; 379 N.E.2d 166; 407 N.Y.S.2d 638; 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2095

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Deas v. Levitt (N.Y. 1989)
Deas v. Levitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Ganguly v. New York State Department of Mental Hygiene-Dunlap Manhattan Psychiatric Center (District Court, S.D. New York 1981)
City of NY v. STATE DHR (N.Y. 1999)
City of New York v. New York State Division of Human Rights (N.Y. 1999)
City of New York v. New York State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Moskowitz v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Boasi v. New York City Civil Service Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Kurland v. McLaughlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
New York City Department of Personnel v. New York State Division of Human Rights (N.Y. 1978)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner did not commence this article 78 proceeding seeking appointment until after the subject list of eligibles had expired. Accordingly, the courts may grant him neither appointment from that expired list (Matter of Cash v Bates, 301 NY 258, 261; Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 NY2d 907, decided herewith; cf. Matter of Mena v DAmbrose, 44 NY2d 428), nor the equivalent relief he now seeks of retroactive seniority in his subsequently obtained civil service position (cf. Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 58 AD2d 787, affd 44 NY2d 907, decided herewith). We express no view as to what would be the proper result had petitioner instead commenced a proceeding prior to the expiration of the list and that proceeding had been dismissed for a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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