Opinion
October 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ciparick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"Administrative determinations concerning position classifications are of course subject to only limited judicial review, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis" (Cove v Sise, 71 N.Y.2d 910, 912; see, Matter of Bellacosa v Classification Review Bd., 72 N.Y.2d 383, 390). "Where there is a fair and reasonable ground for difference of opinion as to classification, the court will not interfere with the judgment of the administrative body or officer" (Donegan v Nadell, 113 A.D.2d 676, 680-681). Guided by these principles, we conclude that the determination by the Classification Review Board of the Unified Court System of the State of New York upholding the Chief Administrative Judge's allocation of the position held by the petitioner, principal appellate law assistant, to salary grade JG-31 on the basis of internal comparisons with other and predecessor titles in the legal title series having comparable levels of duties and responsibilities (cf., Judiciary Law § 39 [a]) was neither arbitrary nor without a rational basis. Moreover, inasmuch as the duties and responsibilities of the position entail a relationship of confidence and trust between the employer and employee, principal appellate law assistants being required "to serve in a confidential capacity" and "to handle sensitive matters on a confidential basis", the designation of the position as "confidential" by the Chief Administrative Judge was proper (see, People ex rel. Flood v Gardiner, 157 N.Y. 520; Chittenden v Wurster, 152 N.Y. 345; Matter of Holcombe v Gusty, 51 A.D.2d 868). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.