Summary
In Matter of Bridgman v. Kern (282 N.Y. 375) a New York City Civil Service Rule prohibiting the examiners from comparing scores was violated and, additionally, an instruction was given that at least one-half of the candidates must fail.
Summary of this case from Matter of Wolfson v. PostonOpinion
Argued January 11, 1940
Decided March 12, 1940
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, SCHMUCK, J.
Albert B. Breslow, Herman D. Mines and I. Lloyd Cabin for petitioners, appellants and respondents.
Abraham Bernard King and Joseph F. Ryan for Gustav G. Schoenchen et al., amici curiae. William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel ( Robert H. Schaffer, Paxton Blair and Denis B. Sullivan of counsel), for Paul J. Kern et al., constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., defendants, respondents and appellants. Herbert A. Wolff, Jonas J. Shapiro and Justin N. Reinhardt for Joseph Jablonower, defendant, respondent and appellant.
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.