From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Romaine v. Halpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 1990
160 A.D.2d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 23, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hand, J.).


Ordered that on the court's own motion, the appellant's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, the application is referred to Presiding Justice Mangano, and leave to appeal is granted by Presiding Justice Mangano (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof which directed the Suffolk County Executive to execute and approve the SCIN Form 167's submitted to him by the Suffolk County Clerk and declaring that the Suffolk County Clerk has the absolute right to appoint any qualified individual to vacant positions in his department, and substituting therefor provisions dismissing the petitioner's first and second causes; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Clerk commenced the instant proceeding challenging the failure of the County Executive to approve appointments to two vacancies in the County Clerk's office. The petitioner states that each of those positions is a budgeted and vacant position during the current 1990 fiscal year and that no provision of the Suffolk County Administrative Code authorizes, permits, or otherwise legally entitles the County Executive to prevent a department head from hiring employees within his department, where there is a budgetary appropriation for that purpose and where the persons to be appointed meet the established minimum qualifications.

The Supreme Court directed the County Executive to execute and approve the SCIN Form 167's with respect to each of the other positions requested and declared that the County Clerk had the absolute right to appoint any qualified individual to the vacant positions. It also held that the County Clerk, who was represented by a private attorney, is entitled to counsel fees, and directed him to submit an "attorney's affidavit or affirmation of legal services".

We modify the order and judgment appealed from in the manner indicated, for the reasons stated in Matter of Caputo v. Halpin ( 160 A.D.2d 938 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Romaine v. Halpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 23, 1990
160 A.D.2d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Romaine v. Halpin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EDWARD P. ROMAINE, Respondent, v. PATRICK G. HALPIN et…

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

Date published: Apr 23, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Suffolk County Ass'n v. County of Suffolk

d that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter…

Suffolk County Ass'n v. County of Suffolk

While inaction by the County Legislature is tantamount to approval under the allotment system (see, Suffolk…