Legal Opinion
Matter of Tanzosh v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 8, 1978PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
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 NY 258, 261; Matter of New York City Dept. of Personnel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 NY2d 907, decided herewith; cf. Matter of Mena v DAmbrose, 44 NY2d 428), nor the equivalent relief he now seeks of retroactive seniority in his subsequently…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cash v. BatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- New York City Department of Personnel v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- 120 Bay Street Realty Corp. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
3Cited by14 opinions
- Deas v. LevittNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Ganguly v. New York State Department of Mental Hygiene-Dunlap Manhattan Psychiatric CenterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1981
- City of New York v. New York State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Kurland v. McLaughlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- City of New York v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.