Legal Opinion
Holcombe v. Gusty
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 20, 1976PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The question presented is whether it was arbitrary to classify investigators in the Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office in the "competitive” class of the Civil Service. In an article 78 proceeding Special Term concluded that it was arbitrary. We agree. The statutory framework of the Civil Service Law provides for classified and unclassified service, (Civil Service Law, § 35). The classified, with which we deal here, is divided into four classes: "exempt”, "non-competitive”, "labor” and "competitive” (Civil Service Law, §40).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chittenden v. . WursterNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Matter of Meenagh v. DeweyNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Matter of Friedman v. FineganNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Matter of Rooney v. RiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
3Cited by5 opinions
- Burke v. AxelrodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Hannon v. BartlettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- McGreevy v. Classification Review Board of the Unified Court SystemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Murphy v. RosenblattNew York Supreme Court · 1988
- Dillon v. Nassau County Civil Service CommissionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977