From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yetman v. D'Ambrose

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 27, 1978
46 N.Y.2d 830 (N.Y. 1978)

Opinion

Argued November 30, 1978

Decided December 27, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, THOMAS J. HUGHES, J., CHARLES TIERNEY, J., and HYMAN KORN, J.

Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Susan L. Bloom and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), for appellants.

Richard K. Shepard for respondents in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Adolph D. Seltzer, Dominick F. Callo and Robert J. Cahn for respondents in the second above-entitled proceeding.

Seymour Gewirtz, respondent pro se, in the third above-entitled proceeding.


MEMORANDUM.

In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.

Petitioners, members of the New York City Fire Department, successfully competed in a competitive examination for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant. A promotional eligibility list was promulgated on July 13, 1972. Subsequently, the Legislature amended section 85 (subd 1, par [c], cl [3]) of the Civil Service Law and extended the "time of war" period of the Korean conflict to January 31, 1955, thereby authorizing the grant of veterans' preference credit on civil service examinations to persons who had served in the armed forces during that period (L 1976, ch 313 [eff June 8, 1976]). The effect of the amendment was to harmonize the State's recognition of the dates of the Korean conflict with those of the Federal Government (US Code, tit 38, § 101, subd [9]).

Respondents denied petitioners' requests to award them additional credits on their promotional examinations by reason of their service in the armed forces during the period embraced by the redefined duration of the Korean conflict. Claiming the amendatory legislation to be remedial and therefore retroactive, petitioners instituted these article 78 proceedings to compel respondents to award them additional veterans' preference points on the ground that refusal to do so constituted arbitrary and capricious administrative action.

Recognizing that civil service eligibility lists must be finalized as soon as practicable, our Constitution specifies that veterans' preference credit "shall be granted only at the time of the establishment of [the eligibility] list" (NY Const, art V, § 6; see, also, Civil Service Law, § 85, subd 3). Inasmuch as the eligibility list had already been made at the time the amendatory legislation was enacted, petitioners were not entitled to additional veterans' preference credit. In view of the specific command of the Constitution, attempts to glean an intent on the part of the Legislature that this legislation be applied retroactively are unavailing.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Yetman v. D'Ambrose

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 27, 1978
46 N.Y.2d 830 (N.Y. 1978)
Case details for

Yetman v. D'Ambrose

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE YETMAN et al., Respondents, v. ALPHONSE E. D'AMBROSE, as Director…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 27, 1978

Citations

46 N.Y.2d 830 (N.Y. 1978)
414 N.Y.S.2d 119
386 N.E.2d 1086

Citing Cases

Woods v. City of New York

"Any statute or rule contrary to the express language of the Constitution or to its true spirit and intent,…

Cetrone v. D'Ambrose

Joseph W. Allen for respondents. Order reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed on the authority of…