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: DARLENE SIKORSKI–PETRITZ, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF ERIE, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to vacate the decision of respondent, County of Erie (County), to demote her from a position as Counsel–Social Services to a position of Medical Caseworker. Petitioner contends that she was appointed to a permanent or contingent permanent position as Counsel–Social Services and was therefore entitled to the procedural protections of Civil Service Law § 75 prior to her demotion. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. The record establishes that the County appointed petitioner to a temporary Counsel–Social Services position, and therefore the protections of Civil Service Law § 75 do not apply (see Matter of Jones v Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs., 228 A.D.2d 601, 601; Matter of Ause v. Regan, 59 A.D.2d 317, 323). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the temporary appointment could exceed three months because the appointment was made for a position that was encumbered by an employee on leave of absence (see § 64[1][a] ). Inasmuch as the Counsel–Social Services position did not become vacant before petitioner's demotion, her temporary appointment to that position could not have ripened into a permanent one (see generally Matter of Albany Permanent Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 2007, IAFF, AFL–CIO v City of Albany, 303 A.D.2d 819, 819–820; Matter of Wadsworth v. Garnsey, 62 A.D.2d 1141, 1141, lv denied 45 N.Y.2d 706). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 16–02233
Decided: June 09, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)