Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Bridgman v. Kern 282 N.Y. 375

← Cases

Bridgman v. Kern

282 N.Y. 375 Court N.Y. Decision date 1940-03-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 375
In the Matter of William C. Bridgman et al., Appellants and Respondents, against Paul J. Kern et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents and Appellants.
p. 376
Argued January 11, 1940;
decided March 12, 1940.
p. 380
Albert B. Breslow, Herman D. Mines and I. Lloyd Cabin for petitioners, appellants and respondents.
The Municipal Civil Service Commission was guilty of improper and arbitrary conduct in part one of the oral examination. (Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367 .) Part two of the teclmical-oral examination violated the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to civil service. (State Const., art. 5, § 6; Cons. Laws, ch. 7, §§ 14, 25; Matter of Fink v. Finegan, 270 N. Y. 356 .)
Abraham Bernard King and Joseph F. Ryan for Gustav G. Schoenchen et al., amici curiæ.
Part one of the technical-oral test was illegally and arbitrarily conducted and rated. (Rosalsky v. State, 254 N. Y. 117 ; Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183 ; Matter of Richardson, 247 N. Y. 401 ; Carmody v. City of Mt. Vernon, 3 App. Div. 347 ; People ex rel. Davie v. Lynch, 164 App. Div. 517 ; Hellyer v. Prendergast, 176 App. Div. 383 .)
William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Robert H. Schaffer, Paxton Blair and Denis B. Sullivan of counsel), for Paul J. Kern et al., constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., defendants, respondents and appellants.
The directions to the examiners in part one of the oral examination were valid and in full conformity with law. (Matter of Thomas v. Kern, 280 N. Y. 236 ; Matter of Snyder v. Finegan, 253 App. Div. 707 ; 278 N. Y. 665 ; Matter of Danziger v. Rice, 245 App. Div. 671 .) The standards used in rating the competitors in the examination were objective and reviewable. (Matter of Fink v. Finegan, 270 N, Y, 356 ; 275 N. Y.
p. 381
591 ; Matter of Snyder v. Finegan, 253 App. Div. 707 ; 278 N. Y. 665 ; Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367 .)
Herbert A. Wolff, Jonas J. Shapiro and Justin N. Reinhardt for Joseph Jablonower, defendant, respondent and appellant.
The examination conformed in all respects to the constitutional and statutory rules governing civil service examinations and appointments. (Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367 ; Matter of Snyder v. Finegan, 253 App. Div. 707 ; 278 N. Y. 665 .) The examination was conducted and rated in accordance with objective standards. (Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367 ; Matter of Fink v. Finegan, 270 N. Y. 356 ; 275 N. Y. 591 ; Matter of Andresen v. Rice, 277 N. Y. 271 ; Matter of Snyder v. Finegan, 278 N. Y. 665 .) Part one of the technical oral examination was properly conducted. (Hurley v. Board of Education, 270 N. Y. 275 ; Matter of Thomas v. Kern, 280 N. Y. 236 .)

We are of opinion that the technical oral examination was invalid for these reasons: (1) The direction that the “ examiners should fail not less than about one-half the total group of candidates ” was improper; (2) the instruction that the examiners adjust their ratings after consultation violated the civil service rule that “ Each subject shall be rated by two examiners acting separately ” (Rules of Municipal Civil Service Commission [New York City], rule 5, § 5, ¶ 1); (3) commentaries elicited from candidates were so vague or remote in character and broad in scope that the ratings in respect of “ soundness of the position taken ” disclosed only the unsupported conclusions of the examiners. (Cf. Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367 .)

We have not considered other matters referred to by the court below.

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cases cited