New York Court of Appeals, 1992

Shafer v. Regan

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 24, 1992

80 N.Y.2d 1006; 607 N.E.2d 803; 592 N.Y.S.2d 656; 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 3902

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
Matter of Spence v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Brynien v. New York State Department of Civil Service (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. State University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Arrocha v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Anderson v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Board of Education v. Christa Construction, Inc. (N.Y. 1993)

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

*1008OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the impracticability of competitive testing for the position of Municipal Financial Analyst was not established. Nor did the record disclose any different or additional qualifications which would distinguish Municipal Financial Analysts from auditors placed in the competitive class. There was therefore no rational basis for the wholesale exemption of all Municipal Financial Analysts from civil service competitive examination (cf., Matter of Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 506 [court should not interfere where an argument can be made for either classification]). However, we do not join with the Appellate Division in suggesting that, assuming the existence of some additional qualifications for which it is impracticable to test, the Commission still would have been required to try to find a "middle ground” position. We express no view regarding the validity of the rule established in Matter of Condell v Jorling (151 AD2d 88).

Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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