IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. SCOTTO, &C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. DAVID M.
DINKINS, &C., ET AL., APPELLANTS.
85 N.Y.2d 209, 647 N.E.2d 1317, 623 N.Y.S.2d 809 (1995).
February 23, 1995
1 No. 230 (1995 NY Int. 049)
Decided February 23, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Janet L. Zaleon, for Appellants.
Vincent D. McDonnell, for Respondents.
New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, amicus
curiae.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The purely statutory construction issue in this article 78 proceeding
was resolved by Supreme Court granting the petition. The Appellate
Division affirmed and certified to us the question of the propriety of
its ruling. The affirmed judgment directed appellants-respondents to
comply with the appointment directive of section 14-103(b)(2) of the
Administrative Code of the City of New York (as amended by L 1990, ch
755) by officially designating petitioners as detectives. Petitioners
are police officers performing duties in four different categories of
investigative functions. The judgment also declared that New York City
Police Department Interim Order 61 and related departmental
directives, restricting the applicability of section 14-103(b)(2), are
null and void and enjoined their implementation.
The dispositive inquiry devolves to whether the Legislature, in
enacting the 1990 amendment to section 14-103(b)(2) of the
Administrative Code, intended to provide the Police Commissioner of
the New York City Police Department with the discretion to define the
statute's operative term and, by so doing, to countermand or curtail
the remedial sweep of the statutory amendment itself. We conclude that
the Legislature's intent was to eliminate the very discretion which
the Commissioner now seeks to reclaim. Consequently, the order of the
Appellate Division upholding the invalidation of the Department's
contrary directives should be affirmed and the certified question
answered in the affirmative.
As amended (L 1990, ch 755), section 14-103(b)(2) of the
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS J. SCOTTO, &C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. DAVID M. DINKINS, &C., ET
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Janet L. Zaleon, for Appellants.
New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials,
The affirmed judgment directed appellants-respondents to comply with the appointment
Petitioners are police officers performing duties in four different categories of
The judgment also declared that New York City Police Department Interim Order 61 and related
The dispositive inquiry devolves to whether the Legislature, in enacting the 1990 amendment
Any person who has received permanent appointment as a police officer and is temporarily
This provision was enacted to remedy morale and inequity problems resulting from indefinitely
To countermand this amendment, the Police Department of the City of New York issued Interim
Subsequently, the Department issued Interim Order 60-3, applicable to certain other
of Life Underwriters v New York State Banking Dept., 83 NY2d 353, 359-360).
On this basis, they maintain that the Commissioner retains the power to fill gaps in the
Appellants' argument is equally flawed because it contradicts the legislative history of the
It was precisely because of the Police Commissioner's unbridled discretion in making such
For all these reasons, we reject appellants' appeal and are not persuaded by the views
we affirm the lower courts' determination.
We note, too, that appellants' claim that section 14-103violates the merit and fitness clause
Identifying and assigning responsibilities for the various ranks in the police department is
for permanent positions.
It may be argued that the Commissioner abused his discretion when he issued Interim Order 61,
|
