From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Russo v. Prendergast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 5, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, the determinations are confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed as no appeal lies as of right from an order in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, CPLR 5701[b][1]). In any event, the appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because any right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the proceeding (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The Commissioner of Personnel of the County of Rockland is authorized to "prescribe minimum qualifications for each position" offered (Matter of Canava v. Keyes, 62 A.D.2d 997, 998), and may exercise discretion in "determining the qualifications of candidates" for exams (Matter of Choset v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 199 A.D.2d 264, 265; Matter of Kirchgessner v. Hurlbut, 81 A.D.2d 958). A court may not interfere with the Commissioner's exercise of that discretion "unless the decision is irrational and arbitrary" (Matter of Choset v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., supra, at 265; see, Matter of Weitzenberg v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 172 A.D.2d 6133, even if the court "'"'differ[s] * * * as to its advisability'"'" (Canava v Keyes, supra, at 998; Matter of Kamensky v. Barclay, 123 A.D.2d 694, 696).

A review of the record establishes that the Commissioner's determinations that the petitioners did not have the minimum qualifications to take the examination in question were not arbitrary and irrational. Therefore, the court erred in annulling those determinations.

O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Russo v. Prendergast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Russo v. Prendergast

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARJORIE RUSSO et al., Respondents, v. PATRICIA…

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

Date published: May 5, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 331