New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Service Law § 65 (2026)

Provisional appointments

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 65. Provisional appointments. 1. Provisional appointments
authorized.  Whenever there is no appropriate eligible list available
for filling a vacancy in the competitive class, the appointing officer
may nominate a person to the state civil service department or municipal
commission for non-competitive examination, and if such nominee shall be
certified by such department or municipal commission as qualified after
such non-competitive examination, he may be appointed provisionally to
fill such vacancy until a selection and appointment can be made after
competitive examination. Such non-competitive examination may consist of
a review and evaluation of the training, experience and other
qualifications of the nominee, without written, oral or other
performance tests.
  2. Time limitation on provisional appointments. No provisional
appointment shall continue for a period in excess of nine months. The
civil service department shall for competitive positions within its
jurisdiction, and a municipal civil service commission shall for
competitive positions within its jurisdiction, order a civil service
examination for any position held by provisional appointment for a
period of one month and such department or commission shall conduct a
civil service examination, or see that such an examination is conducted,
as soon as practicable thereafter, in order to prevent the provisional
appointment from continuing for a period in excess of nine months.
  3. Termination of provisional appointments. A provisional appointment
to any position shall be terminated within two months following the
establishment of an appropriate eligible list for filling vacancies in
such positions; provided, however, that where there are a large number
of provisional appointees in any department or agency in the service of
the state or any civil division thereof to be replaced by permanent
appointees from a newly established eligible list, and the appointing
officer or body deems that the termination of the employment of all such
provisional appointees within two months following establishment of such
list would disrupt or impair essential public services, evidence thereof
may be presented to the civil service department or municipal commission
having jurisdiction which, after due inquiry, and upon finding that it
is in the best interest of the public service, may waive the provisions
of this subdivision requiring the termination of the employment of
provisional appointees within two months following the establishment of
an appropriate eligible list and authorize the termination of the
employment of various numbers of such provisional appointees at stated
intervals prescribed by such commission; provided, however, that in no
case shall the employment of any such provisional appointee be continued
longer than four months following the establishment of such eligible
list.
  4. Successive provisional appointments. Successive provisional
appointments shall not be made to the same position after the expiration
of the authorized period of the original provisional appointment to such
position; provided, however, that where an examination for a position or
group of positions fails to produce a list adequate to fill all
positions then held on a provisional basis, or where such list is
exhausted immediately following its establishment, a new provisional
appointment may be made to any such position remaining unfilled by
permanent appointment, and such new provisional appointment may, in the
discretion of the appointing authority, be given to a current or former
provisional appointee in such position, except that a current or former
provisional appointee who becomes eligible for permanent appointment to
any such position shall, if he is then to be continued in or appointed
to any such position be afforded permanent appointment to such position.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases, 1975–2019 · leading case: City of Long Beach v. Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n, 867 N.E.2d 389 (N.Y. 2007).
City of Long Beach v. Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n, 867 N.E.2d 389 (N.Y. 2007). · cites it 14× “With respect to provisional appointments, the Civil Service Law authorizes such appointments only when there is no eligible list available for filling a vacancy in a competitive class, and then only for a maximum period of nine months ( see Civil Service Law § 65 [1], *471 [2]).…”
Espinoza v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Transp., 304 F. Supp. 3d 374 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “" N.Y. Civil Serv. Law § 65 (3). Even if no eligible list was created, his employment could only continue for nine months.”
Lee v. Albany-Schoharie-Schenectady-Saratoga Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 69 A.D.3d 1289 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2010). · cites it 3× “It is undisputed that petitioner was a provisional employee (see Civil Service Law § 65). As such, she was subject to termination by BOCES “at any time without charges preferred, a statement of reasons given or a hearing held” (Matter of Preddice v Callanan, 69 NY2d 812, 814…”
Preddice v. Callanan, 506 N.E.2d 529 (N.Y. 1987). “Appointments made pursuant to Civil Service Law § 65 are provisional in nature; provisional employees have no expectation of tenure and rights attendant thereto except under the limited circumstances specified in Civil Service Law § 65 (4) (Matter of Becker v New York State Civ.”
City of Rome v. State of New York Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 283 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2001). · cites it 2× “The Court’s actual holding is that, because appointments made pursuant to Civil Service Law § 65 are provisional in nature and provisional employees have no expectation of tenure and rights attendant thereto except under the limited circumstances specified in Civil Service Law §…”
Joyce v. Ortiz, 108 A.D.2d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1985). · cites it 2× “These provisional designations were made notwithstanding the existence of Civil Service Law § 65, which limits provisional appointments to nine months, requires that an examination be scheduled within one month of a provisional appointment and prohibits successive provisional…”
O'Connor v. Frawley, 175 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). · cites it 2× “Petitioner commenced an article 78 proceeding alleging that because respondents had failed to conduct a competitive civil service examination for more than 12 years, their termination *782 of petitioner’s position as a provisional Administrative Attorney was arbitrary and…”
Snyder v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 132 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1987). · cites it 12× “Additionally, Civil Service Law § 65 (1) authorizes provisional appointments where "there is no appropriate eligible list available for filling a vacancy”.”
Gomez v. Hernandez, 50 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). “A provisional appointment may ripen into a permanent appointment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 65 (4) (see Matter of Becker v New York State Civ.”
Bonacci v. Quinones, 124 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1986). “Thus, the petitioner’s one-year probationary period pursuant to Education Law § 2509, 4 NYCRR 4.5 and New York City Department of Personnel Rules and Regulations 5.”
Eldridge v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 82 A.D.3d 1147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011). “It is the obligation of the appointing authority to terminate all provisional appointments “within two months following the establishment of an appropriate eligible list for filling vacancies” (Civil Service Law § 65 [3]). The power of the civil service department and municipal…”
Aladin v. Schultz, 176 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). “Civil Service Law § 65 establishes a time limitation of nine months for a provisional appointment (subd [2]) and a general rule that provisional appointments should be terminated within two months following establishment of an appropriate eligible list for filling vacancies in…”
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.