Legal Opinion
Donegan v. Nadell
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 21, 1986PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Niehoff, J.
Although petitioner Donegan’s situation appeals to our sense of equity, we agree with Special Term that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Classification Review Board to have found that "the comparison of the former title specification for Court Assistant II with the new title standard for Principal Office Assistant provides a rational basis for the Chief Administrative Judge’s decision of December 3, 1982” assigning her the new title of principal office assistant, a title which does not contain any mention of data entry or computer skills or duties.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Grossman v. RankinNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Gavigan v. McCoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Dillon v. Nassau County Civil Service CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Matter of Cook v. KernNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Niebling v. WagnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McGreevy v. Classification Review Board of the Unified Court SystemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Scarsdale Ass'n of Educational Secretaries v. Board of Education of Scarsdale Union Free School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- O'Neill v. PfauNew York Supreme Court · 2011
- Cribbin v. New York State Unified Court SystemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Cribbin v. New York State Unified Court SystemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013