Best Lawblog Contest for 2017 now being conducted by The Legal Institute

From now until
September 15th, 2017, Lawblog fans can nominate their favorite blogs and bloggers for inclusion in the voting round of 2017. As in previous years, the nomination process is competitive, meaning the more nominations a blog receives, the more likely it is to be included in the public voting stage of the contest.

To access the link to the nomination form, click on:

https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/blog-contest/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=CTA&utm_campaign=blog-contest-8.14.2017-general

Friday, September 16, 2011

Special eligible lists


Special eligible lists
Colavito v NYC Civil Service Comm., 277 A.D.2d 94

The general rule is that appointments may not be made from an eligible list once it has expired. However, there are a number of exceptions to this general proposition. In the Colavito case, the court considered a candidate's attempt to be placed on a special eligible list.

Joseph Colavito failed the examination for blacksmith. The list expired on May 8, 1995. Colavito, however, did not commence his Article 78 action challenging his test score on the practical part of the examination until November 1998. This, said the court, meant that his Article 78 petition was untimely.

Citing Deas v Levitt, 73 NY2d 525, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed Supreme Court Judge Louise Gruner Gans' dismissal of his petition. The Appellate Division said that where a candidate seeks to be placed on a special eligible list, he [or she] must commence the proceeding before the list expires and “must challenging the validity of the list itself”.

Special eligible lists may be established if certain conditions are satisfied. The basic rules governing such cases are as follows:

1. If a candidate's disqualification has been reversed or his or her rank order on an eligible list has been adjusted as a result of administrative or judicial action, his or her name is placed on the eligible list for a period equal to the period of disqualification or the period he or she has been improperly ranked, up to a maximum period of one year or until the expiration of the eligible list, whichever is longer [Civil Service Law Section 56.3].

2. If an eligible list expires before the expiration of the candidate's “period of restoration,” the candidate's name is placed on a special eligible list for the remanding period of his or her restoration, not to exceed a maximum of one year [Civil Service Law Section 56.3].

3. If a candidate's disqualification is reversed or his or her rank is adjusted after the eligible list has expired, his or her name is placed on a special eligible list for a length of time equal to the restored period of time not to exceed a maximum of one year [Civil Service Law Section 56.3].

4. If a court determines that an eligible list is invalid, it may order the creation of a special eligible list having a life of at least one year but not more than four years from the date on which the corrected list is published [Civil Service Law Section 56.4].

In any event, the First Department held that critical to obtaining any relief pursuant to Section 56.3 or Section 56.4 is the candidate's commencing his or her challenge to the examination before the eligible list expires.

Handbooks focusing on State and Municipal Public Personnel Law continue to be available for purchase via the links provided below:

The Discipline Book at http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances at http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com

The Disability Benefits E-book: at http://section207.blogspot.com/

Layoff, Preferred Lists at http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

Caution:

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that the publisher is not providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader should seek such advice from a competent professional.

Items published in NYPPL may not be used for commercial purposes without prior written permission to copy and distribute such material. Send your request via e-mail to publications@nycap.rr.com

Copyright© 1987 - 2017 by the Public Employment Law Press.



___________________



N.B. From time to time a political ad or endorsement may appear in the sidebar of this Blog. NYPPL does not have any control over such posting.

_____________________

.