IN RE: Kevin BRANNIGAN (2000)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents to promote an employee other than the petitioners to the position of Labor Supervisor of the Great Neck Park District, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated May 10, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners did not carry their burden of demonstrating that the respondents' determination was irrational or arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Arrocha v. Board of Educ., 93 N.Y.2d 361, 690 N.Y.S.2d 503, 712 N.E.2d 669;  Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321;  Colton v. Berman, 21 N.Y.2d 322, 287 N.Y.S.2d 647, 234 N.E.2d 679;  Matter of Conlon v. Commissioner of Civ. Serv. of County of Suffolk, 225 A.D.2d 766, 640 N.Y.S.2d 145).   Moreover, Article XIX, Section (1)(b) of the parties' collective bargaining agreement expressly authorized the respondents to promote a candidate based upon his or her “qualifications” as well as his or her seniority.   The appointing authority additionally properly examined the applicants' relative personal suitability for the post (see, Matter of Cassidy v. Municipal Civ. Serv. Com., 37 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 375 N.Y.S.2d 300, 337 N.E.2d 752;  Matter of Hatala v. McCaul, 253 A.D.2d 666, 677 N.Y.S.2d 564).   Because there is a rational basis for the respondents' determination, it will not be disturbed (see, e.g., Matter of Wagner v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 304, 698 N.Y.S.2d 46;   Matter of Gallo v. Ritter, 195 A.D.2d 461, 600 N.Y.S.2d 131).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.