From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Hughes v. Doherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 29, 2004
9 A.D.3d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2344.

July 29, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered April 25, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the CPLR article 78 petition to the extent of finding arbitrary and capricious respondent's failure to place the title of "oiler" in the line of promotion to the titles of "crane operator" and "tractor operator," and, pursuant to that finding, directed respondent, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 81 (1), to place petitioners, formerly employed as crane and tractor operators, on the preferred list for filling vacancies in "oiler" positions, and to place petitioners in such positions now held by provisional oilers, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ., Concur.


Supreme Court properly found that respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231-232) in failing to place the title of "oiler" in the line of promotion to the titles of "tractor operator" and "crane operator." Although it was undisputed that the predecessor "oiler (portable)" title had previously been classified in the line of promotion to both the "crane operator" or "tractor operator" titles in the Department of Sanitation, respondent failed to articulate any substantive rationale for his decision to remove the unified "oiler" title from such line of promotion. Respondent merely asserted, in conclusory fashion, that some rationale for the change existed, and this was insufficient.

Respondent's argument that petitioners' challenge to the subject determination is barred by the four-month statute of limitations (CPLR 217) is unavailing. The record shows that respondent failed to raise the statute of limitations defense as an objection in point of law in the court below, either in the answer to the petition or by motion to dismiss the petition ( see CPLR 404 [a]; 7804 [f]; cf. Rosenthal v. City of New York, 283 AD2d 156, 157, lv dismissed 97 NY2d 654). Accordingly, the defense of statute of limitations was waived ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; [e]).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Hughes v. Doherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 29, 2004
9 A.D.3d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Hughes v. Doherty

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMES HUGHES et al., Respondents, et al., Intervenors, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 29, 2004

Citations

9 A.D.3d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
780 N.Y.S.2d 589

Citing Cases

Legacy at Fairways v. McAdoo

Respondents now appeal from a judgment that, inter alia, granted the motion of petitioners for summary…

In the Matter of Hughes v. Doherty

Decided October 26, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 9 AD3d 327. Motion for leave to appeal…