Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Lillian ROBERTS, as Executive Director of District Council 37, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
IN RE: Lillian Roberts, as Executive Director of District Council 37, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. The City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered February 4, 2004, dismissing the petitions bearing index numbers 127943/02 (Roberts I ) and 103953/03 (Roberts II ), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Provisional employees “may be terminated at any time” (Matter of Preddice v. Callanan, 69 N.Y.2d 812, 814, 513 N.Y.S.2d 958, 506 N.E.2d 529 [1987] ) unless “terminated in violation of a constitutional provision or some statute” (id.; see also Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Cottongim] v. County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 N.Y.2d 623, 528 N.Y.S.2d 802, 524 N.E.2d 123 [1988] ). Petitioners allege that respondents violated various statutes and article V, § 6, of the New York State Constitution. However, petitioners were not terminated in violation thereof.
Three of the four provisions on which the Roberts II petitioners rely (N.Y. Const., art. V, § 6; Civil Service Law § 50[1] and § 61[1] ) have nothing to do with terminations. While respondents retained petitioners beyond the statutory time limits in Civil Service Law § 65(2) and (3), they did not terminate petitioners in violation thereof. In Roberts I, the alleged constitutional violation is the hiring of private contract workers, not the termination of petitioners. Similarly, the alleged violation of Social Services Law § 336-c(2)(e) is the use of welfare recipients participating in a Work Experience Program, not the termination of petitioners.
Roberts II involves only provisional employees, and was properly dismissed. Roberts I identifies 250 provisional employees, specifically, 85 clerical associates, 73 clerical aides, 48 secretaries, 25 bookkeepers, 11 computer specialists and 8 computer technicians, for a total of 250 employees. The remaining 44 workers identified as being scheduled for termination are non-competitive employees.1 Because employees in the non-competitive class are not protected by the Civil Service Law (see Garner v. Gunn, 131 A.D.2d 632, 516 N.Y.S.2d 718 [1987]; Tyson v. Hess, 109 A.D.2d 1068, 1069-1070, 487 N.Y.S.2d 206 [1985], affd. 66 N.Y.2d 943, 498 N.Y.S.2d 778, 489 N.E.2d 747 [1985] ), Roberts I was also properly dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The subsequent reference to “259” provisional employees and a total of “303 employees targeted for layoff” in the petition are apparently the result of typographical error as they are otherwise unexplained.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 25, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)