Opinion
Argued June 5, 1984
Decided June 29, 1984
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Joseph P. Torraca, J.
Louis M. Klein for appellant-respondent.
Francis T. Murray, County Attorney ( Brian L. Findholt of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
William M. Wallens for respondents.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to respondents against both appellants, for the reasons stated in its memorandum ( 98 A.D.2d 869). We add that, whether or not petitioner has standing to bring the instant proceeding in light of the provisions of article IV of the collective bargaining agreement ( Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co., 12 N.Y.2d 1; Matter of Soto [ Goldman], 7 N.Y.2d 397), the issues raised are properly before us on the county's appeal, it having cross-petitioned for the same relief. We note further, however, that the claim of laches is not, that question being for the arbitrator (cf. CPLR 7502, subd [b]), and that revocation of the Apuzzo appointment is not barred by section 75 of the Civil Service Law, the failure to follow the seniority preference provision of section 2 of article XIV of the agreement being an irregularity of a substantial nature in the appointment, within the meaning of the last unnumbered paragraph of subdivision 4 of section 50 of the Civil Service Law (see, also, Civil Service Law, § 52, subd 2).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.
Order affirmed, with costs to respondents against appellant, in a memorandum.