LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

KITCHINGS v JENKINS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: KITCHINGS, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>085_0694, Assignment, Transit, Promotion, Civil Service, Tpps, Transit Property Protection, Civil Service Law, Examination, Grade, Respondents, Property Protection Supervisor, Transit Authority, Competitive Examination, Petitioners, City, York, Requiring, Appellate Division, Duties, Employees, Discretion, Reassignment, Probation, Salary Differentials, Permanent, Affirm, Violate, Statute, Ny2d , ContentID: 120250816

Case Documents
1 1995-05-09 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124725
4 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TRANSIT
PROMOTION
CIVIL SERVICE
TPPS
TRANSIT PROPERTY PROTECTION
CIVIL SERVICE LAW
EXAMINATION
GRADE
RESPONDENTS
PROPERTY PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION
PETITIONERS
CITY
COURT
YORK
REQUIRING
APPELLATE DIVISION
DUTIES
EMPLOYEES
DISCRETION
REASSIGNMENT
PROBATION
SALARY DIFFERENTIALS
PERMANENT
AFFIRM
VIOLATE
STATUTE
NY2D


  IN THE MATTER OF BOOKER T. KITCHINGS, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. HERMAN L.
  JENKINS, &C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

    85 N.Y.2d 694, 651 N.E.2d 904, 628 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1995).
    May 9, 1995

   1 No. 103 (1995 NY Int. 114)
   Decided May 9, 1995
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Robert David Goodstein, for Appellants.
   Elizabeth S. Natrella, for Respondent Jenkins.
   Daniel Topper, for Respondent Kiepper.

   SMITH, J.:

   The primary issue here is whether Civil Service Law §§ 52 and 63
   required a competitive examination before respondents were advanced
   from the position of Transit Property Protection Supervisor Level I to
   Transit Property Protection Supervisor Level II. Because the Appellate
   Division properly held that the assignment to the duties at either of
   two levels within a permanent civil service title is reasonable and is
   neither a promotion nor a demotion, we affirm.

   In this article 78 proceeding, petitioners are New York City Transit
   Authority employees assigned as Transit Property Protection
   Supervisors Level I who were eligible for but were not assigned to the
   position of Transit Property Protection Supervisor Level II. The
   individual respondents were assigned to the position Transit Property
   Protection Supervisor Level II without taking an additional civil
   service examination. Petitioners seek an order which voids and
   nullifies alleged promotions of the individual respondents.
   Petitioners seek further to require the Director of Personnel of the
   City of New York to develop, administer and grade a competitive
   examination for the position of Transit Property Protection Supervisor
   Level II pursuant to Civil Service Law § 52.

   By a Department of Personnel resolution dated December 31, 1986, the
   title Transit Property Protection Supervisor (TPPS) was created,
   incorporating two assignment levels into one title. To qualify for a
   position under the TPPS title, an individual must complete and pass a
   competitive promotional civil service examination. All petitioners and
   respondents have attained the TPPS title. Movement from Level I to
SNIPPETS:
  • The primary issue here is whether Civil Service Law §§ 52 and 63 required a competitive
  • Because the Appellate Division properly held that the assignment to the duties at either of
  • petitioners are New York City Transit Authority employees assigned as Transit Property
  • Petitioners seek further to require the Director of Personnel of the City of New York to
  • By a Department of Personnel resolution dated December 31, 1986, the title Transit Property
  • Finding that the Transit Authority and the City neither exceeded the bounds of the law nor
  • The Court found that assignment to positions with higher salary differentials within the same
  • The Appellate Division affirmed, citing Lenihan v City of New York, 85 AD2d 562, affd on
  • Finding no new skills or tasks involved in the duties at either level, and finding further
  • Petitioners maintain further that an individual "assigned" to TPPS Level II would in reality
  • Although the Civil Service Law requires a period of probation corresponding with a promotion
  •    |