§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Thomas P. O'Neill, et al., Appellants-Respondents,v.Ann Pfau,, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

7 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Scherbyn v. Boces

    77 N.Y.2d 753 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 530 times
    Finding that Article 78 review of a quasi-judicial hearing is a certiorari proceeding, not a mandamus to review proceeding, and therefore "substantial evidence" rather than "arbitrary and capricious" is the standard of review

  2. Global Tel*link v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services

    70 A.D.3d 1157 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 11 times

    No. 507326. February 11, 2010. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered June 9, 2009 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Department of Correctional Services denying the award of a contract to petitioner. Whiteman, Osterman Hanna, L.L.P., Albany (John J. Henry of counsel), for appellant. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for State

  3. Matter of Benson v. McCaul

    268 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 15 times
    Finding competitive examination for Risk Management positions to be impracticable "due to the dynamic nature of the [financial] industry which rendered an examination virtually obsolete before completion of the competitive process"

  4. Civil Service v. State of N.Y

    55 A.D.3d 1070 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    October 23, 2008. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered September 20, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents classifying the support magistrate title as a salary grade JG-31. Before: Spain, Carpinello and Malone Jr., JJ., Mercure, J.P. Following a review of respondent Unified Court System's classification plan for nonjudicial employees, respondent Chief Administrative

  5. In the Matter of Solomon v. Lancaster

    19 A.D.3d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    6493. June 30, 2005. Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about October 5, 2004, which, in a proceeding to annul the determination of respondent Commissioner of Buildings denying petitioner's application for a master electrician's license, granted the application to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent for reconsideration after a new hearing before the Licensing Board (Board) at which no member of an electricians' union is to participate

  6. Matter of McGreevy v. Classification Rev. Bd.

    154 A.D.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    October 30, 1989 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ciparick, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. "Administrative determinations concerning position classifications are of course subject to only limited judicial review, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis" (Cove v Sise, 71 N.Y.2d 910, 912; see, Matter of Bellacosa v Classification Review Bd., 72 N.Y.2d 383, 390). "Where

  7. Section 25.5 - Classification and allocation

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 25.5   Cited 17 times

    (a) The Chief Administrator of the Courts shall have the power to classify and reclassify, and to allocate and reallocate to an appropriate salary grade, all positions in the classified service of the Unified Court System. (b) The Chief Administrator of the Courts may, in order to implement a plan for the progressive advancement of employees in an occupational group, based on their acquiring, as prescribed by the Chief Administrator, training or experience or both, reclassify the positions of the