N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Civil Service / ARTICLE Recruitment of Personnel / TITLE Examinations and Eligible Lists
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Service Law § 56 (2026)

Establishment and duration of eligible lists

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 56. Establishment and duration of eligible lists. 1. The duration of
an eligible list shall be fixed at not less than one nor more than four
years; provided that, except for lists promulgated for police officer
positions in jurisdictions other than the city of New York, in the event
that a restriction against the filling of vacancies exists in any
jurisdiction, the state civil service department or municipal commission
having jurisdiction shall, in the discretion of the department or
commission, extend the duration of any eligible list for a period equal
to the length of such restriction against the filling of vacancies.
Restriction against the filling of vacancies shall mean any policy,
whether by executive order or otherwise, which, because of a financial
emergency, prevents or limits the filling of vacancies in a title for
which a list has been promulgated. An eligible list that has been in
existence for one year or more shall terminate upon the establishment of
an appropriate new list, unless otherwise prescribed by the state civil
service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction.
  2. Notwithstanding subdivision one of this section, the duration of
eligible lists established on or before December thirty-first, nineteen
hundred ninety-six, shall be fixed at not less than one nor more than
four years; provided that, except for lists promulgated for police
officer positions in jurisdictions other than the city of New York, in
the event that a restriction against the filling of vacancies exists in
any jurisdiction, the state civil service department or municipal
commission having jurisdiction shall, in the discretion of the
department or commission, extend the duration of any such eligible list
for a period equal to the length of such restriction against the filling
of vacancies. Restriction against the filling of vacancies shall mean
any policy, whether by executive order or otherwise, which prevents or
limits the filling of vacancies in a title for which such a list has
been promulgated. An eligible list that has been in existence for one
year or more shall terminate upon the establishment of an appropriate
new list, unless otherwise prescribed by the state civil service
department or municipal commission having jurisdiction.
  3. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the name of any applicant
or eligible whose disqualification has been reversed or whose rank order
on an eligible list has been adjusted through administrative or judicial
action or proceeding shall be placed on an eligible list for a period of
time equal to the period of disqualification or for the period the
application has been improperly ranked, up to a maximum period of one
year or until the expiration of the eligibility list, whichever is
longer. If an eligible list expires prior to the expiration of such
period of restoration, the name of the applicant or eligible shall be
placed on a special eligible list, which shall have a duration equal to
the longer of (a) the remainder of the period of restoration or (b) two
years. An applicant or eligible whose disqualification has been reversed
or whose rank order has been adjusted subsequent to the expiration of an
eligible list shall be placed on a special eligible list for a length of
time equal to the restored period of time not to exceed a maximum of one
year.
  4. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, where a
court of competent jurisdiction has determined that an eligible list is
invalid, the court may order the creation of a special eligible list
having a duration of not less than one nor more than four years
commencing at the time the corrected list is published.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Deas v. Levitt, 539 N.E.2d 1086 (N.Y. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Deas v. Levitt, 539 N.E.2d 1086 (N.Y. 1989). · cites it 3× “An eligible list that has been in existence for one year or more terminates upon the establishment of a new list "unless otherwise prescribed by the state civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction” (Civil Service Law §56).”
City of New York v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 720 N.E.2d 870 (N.Y. 1999). · cites it 10× “This appeal as of right (CPLR 5601 [b] [1]) by the City of New York raises the question whether subdivision (3) of Civil Service Law § 56, added by amendment in 1994, is constitutional.”
Altamore v. Barrios-Paoli, 683 N.E.2d 740 (N.Y. 1997). · cites it 2× “The 7022 eligible list was originally due to expire four years later, on May 25, 1994 (see, Civil Service Law § 56). However, as a result of a period of restriction on the filling of vacancies for the position of firefighter during 1992 and 1993, respondent Director of the New…”
City of New York v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 250 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · cites it 4× “3090 expired by operation of law (Civil Service Law § 56). In the fall of 1986, OOP’s medical standards were revised, and the automatic disqualification for spina bifida was dropped.”
Rigia v. Koehler, 165 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · cites it 3× “This court notes that the respondents-appellants also raise on appeal the issue of whether the appointment of the petitioner herein is prohibited by NY Constitution, article V, § 6 and the Civil Service Law § 56, due to the expiration of the exam No.”
Vulcan Soc'y of New York City Fire Dep't, Inc. v. City of New York, 96 F.R.D. 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Section 65 allows provisional appointments for up to nine months until selection and appointment can be made on the basis of a competitive examination.”
Matter of Sweeney v. Schneider, 123 A.D.3d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “The eligibility list expired by operation of law in December 2010, rendering the issues presented in the instant proceeding academic by the time the proceeding was commenced (see Civil Service Law § 56 [1]; Matter of Deas v Levitt, 73 NY2d 525, 531 [1989]; Hancock v City of New…”
City of Rome v. State of New York Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 283 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Here, the evidence shows that, although McLiesh had been on an eligibility list for the position of purchasing agent, that list expired on April 25, 1987 and would, in any event, have expired by operation of law at the end of four years (see, Civil Service Law § 56 [1]). It is…”
Matter of Brown v. Cnty. of Nassau, 2023 NY Slip Op 01290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “In a judgment entered January 23, 2018, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.”
Andriola v. Ortiz, 156 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “6 (d), which implements Civil Service Law § 56 in New York City, indicates that only the New York City Personnel Director has the power, in his or her discretion, to extend an eligible list, we find that the IAS court erred in extending the intervenors’ eligible list.”
Pena v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 27 A.D.3d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “On appeal, she seeks to be placed on a “special list,” pursuant to Civil Service Law § 56 (3), contingent on reversal of her disqualification.”
DiNatale v. Levitt, 563 N.E.2d 18 (N.Y. 1990). · cites it 2× “Petitioners do not contest the Personnel Director’s authority to set the duration of the eligible list in the first instance (see, Civil Service Law § 56). Rather, they contend that when the court orders a special eligible list it also has the discretion to establish the…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.