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.