Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McGowan v. Bursteingreen2 sentences2003The merit and fitness requirement was enacted to ensure that competence rather than personal and political influence determine civil service appointments (see McGowan v Burstein, 71 NY2d 729, 733 [1988]; Hale v Worstell, 185 NY 247, 251 [1906]). 1997As we have previously stated, the fact that New York was the first State to constitutionalize the merit and fitness requirement is "a reflection of our citizens’ insistence that competence, rather than cronyism, should determine civil service appointments” (McGowan v Burstein, 71 NY2d 729, 733 , supra). | 1 | 3 |
Hale v. . Worstellgreen2 sentences2003The merit and fitness requirement was enacted to ensure that competence rather than personal and political influence determine civil service appointments (see McGowan v Burstein, 71 NY2d 729, 733 [1988]; Hale v Worstell, 185 NY 247, 251 [1906]). 1988New York was the first State to constitutionalize the merit and fitness requirement, a reflection of our citizens’ insistence that competence, rather than cronyism, should determine civil service appointments (see, Hale v Worstell, 185 NY 247, 251 ; see also, Matter of Montero v Lum, 68 NY2d 253, 258 ). | 1 | 2 |
Montero v. Lumgreen2 sentences1997Although the constitutional merit and fitness provision has been recognized as "self-executing” (Matter of Montero v Lum, 68 NY2d 253, 258 , supra), the Legislature has enacted a number of statutes to implement the constitutional merit and fitness ant competitive examination requirements (see, e.g., Civil Service Law §§ 44, 50, 51, 52, 61, 65, 73). 1988New York was the first State to constitutionalize the merit and fitness requirement, a reflection of our citizens’ insistence that competence, rather than cronyism, should determine civil service appointments (see, Hale v Worstell, 185 NY 247, 251 ; see also, Matter of Montero v Lum, 68 NY2d 253, 258 ). | 1 | 2 |
Gallagher v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2021"The merit and fitness requirement was enacted to ensure that competence rather than personal and political influence determine civil service appointments" ( Matter of Gallagher v City of New York , 307 AD2d 76, 80 [2003] [citations omitted], lv denied 1 NY3d 503 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Altman v. Langgreen1 sentence2003The Constitution’s Merit and Fitness Clause, in conjunction with civil service legislation, is intended to improve the civil service by the appointment of employees of greater merit and ability (see Matter of Altman v Lang, 44 Misc 2d 751, 753 [1965], affd 23 AD2d 820 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 464 [1965]). | 1 | 1 |
Deas v. Levittgreen2 sentences1996Although an exception to this rule exists in the form of a "special eligible” list (see, Civil Service Law § 56 [3]), the Court of Appeals has held that "[b]efore being entitled to placement on a special eligible list for a civil service position, [the] applicant must bring a proceeding, before the list expires, successfully challenging the validity of the list itself’ (Matter of Deas v Levitt, supra, at 527). 1996As a general rule, a civil service applicant cannot be appointed from an expired list, as such appointment would be both a legal impossibility and a violation of the merit and fitness clause of NY Constitution, article V, § 6 (see, Matter of Deas v Levitt, 73 NY2d 525, 529-530 , cert denied 493 US 933 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nardone v. Coyne
green
1 sentence2003The Constitution’s Merit and Fitness Clause, in conjunction with civil service legislation, is intended to improve the civil service by the appointment of employees of greater merit and ability (see Matter of Altman v Lang, 44 Misc 2d 751, 753 [1965], affd 23 AD2d 820 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 464 [1965]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Altman v. Lang
green
1 sentence2003The Constitution’s Merit and Fitness Clause, in conjunction with civil service legislation, is intended to improve the civil service by the appointment of employees of greater merit and ability (see Matter of Altman v Lang, 44 Misc 2d 751, 753 [1965], affd 23 AD2d 820 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 464 [1965]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Deas v. Levitt
green
1 sentence1996As a general rule, a civil service applicant cannot be appointed from an expired list, as such appointment would be both a legal impossibility and a violation of the merit and fitness clause of NY Constitution, article V, § 6 (see, Matter of Deas v Levitt, 73 NY2d 525, 529-530 , cert denied 493 US 933 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Riggi v. Blessing
green
1 sentence1978Provisional appointments allowed by section 65 of the Civil Service Law under certain circumstances for a limited period of time are merely "stop-gap” measures (see Koso v Greene, 260 NY 491, 495 ), which may not be used to evade the merit and fitness requirement of section 6 of article V of the State Constitution; nor may an agency use successive provisional appointments to circumvent the civil service laws (Matter of Riggi v Blessing, 9 AD2d 423, 424 , affd 10 NY2d 917 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Koso v. Greene
green
1 sentence1978Provisional appointments allowed by section 65 of the Civil Service Law under certain circumstances for a limited period of time are merely "stop-gap” measures (see Koso v Greene, 260 NY 491, 495 ), which may not be used to evade the merit and fitness requirement of section 6 of article V of the State Constitution; nor may an agency use successive provisional appointments to circumvent the civil service laws (Matter of Riggi v Blessing, 9 AD2d 423, 424 , affd 10 NY2d 917 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Riggi v. Blessing
neutral
1 sentence1978Provisional appointments allowed by section 65 of the Civil Service Law under certain circumstances for a limited period of time are merely "stop-gap” measures (see Koso v Greene, 260 NY 491, 495 ), which may not be used to evade the merit and fitness requirement of section 6 of article V of the State Constitution; nor may an agency use successive provisional appointments to circumvent the civil service laws (Matter of Riggi v Blessing, 9 AD2d 423, 424 , affd 10 NY2d 917 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Railway Mail Ass'n v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1957The Authority cites cases such as Railway Mail Assn. v. Murphy ( 180 Misc. 868 ) and Petrucci v. Hogan ( 5 Misc 2d 480 ) to indicate a contrary policy with respect to State employees but those cases were concerned primarily with the undesirable effects of strikes by public employees and with the effects of a closed or union shop on the merit and fitness standard of civil service, not with the application of bargaining rights in general. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Petrucci v. Hogan
neutral
1 sentence1957The Authority cites cases such as Railway Mail Assn. v. Murphy ( 180 Misc. 868 ) and Petrucci v. Hogan ( 5 Misc 2d 480 ) to indicate a contrary policy with respect to State employees but those cases were concerned primarily with the undesirable effects of strikes by public employees and with the effects of a closed or union shop on the merit and fitness standard of civil service, not with the application of bargaining rights in general. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.