AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

In the Matter of WILLIAM TANZOSH, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner did not commence this article 78 proceeding seeking appointment until after the subject list of eligibles had expired. Accordingly, the courts may grant him neither appointment from that expired list (Matter of Cash v Bates, 301 N.Y. 258, 261; Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 N.Y.2d 907, decided herewith; cf. Matter of Mena v D'Ambrose, 44 N.Y.2d 428), nor the equivalent relief he now seeks of retroactive seniority in his subsequently obtained civil service position (cf. Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 58 A.D.2d 787, affd 44 N.Y.2d 907, decided herewith). We express no view as to what would be the proper result had petitioner instead commenced a proceeding prior to the expiration of the list and that proceeding had been dismissed for a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

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

Order affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF TANZOSH v. NEW YORK CITY CIV. SERV. COMM
(Jun 8, 1978)