Matter of Renaldo v. Blum, 36 N.Y.2d 420 (1975)

Candidates on a civil service eligible list have standing to challenge appointments made in violation of civil service laws and regulations.

Summary

Three candidates on an eligible list for promotion to Supervisor III (Welfare) in New York City challenged the appointment of others to those positions without regard to the list. The New York Court of Appeals held that the candidates had standing to bring the suit. The court reasoned that those who pass a civil service exam and are placed on an eligible list are directly affected by the failure to comply with the law. Allowing them to challenge unlawful appointments ensures that appointments are made according to law and provides judicial oversight. The court also found that laches did not bar the suit because failure to comply with constitutional requirements for appointments is a continuing wrong.

Facts

Petitioners, holding the title of Supervisor II (Welfare) in the New York City Department of Social Services, passed a civil service promotion examination for Supervisor III in June 1968 and were placed on the eligible list, ranked 222, 233, and 271, respectively. The last promotion from the eligible list occurred in December 1970, favoring an eligible ranked 185. Subsequently, at least 37 appointments or designations to the position of Supervisor III (Welfare) were made from outside the list or without regard to ranking, described as “acting,” “provisional,” and “temporary.” Some of these 37 individuals continued to serve in the contested positions.

Procedural History

Petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding, approximately two weeks before the eligible list’s expiration, alleging the appointments violated civil service law. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim and laches, without serving an answer. The lower court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. Petitioners appealed to the New York Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds.

Issue(s)

1. Whether candidates on a civil service eligible list have standing to seek the removal of individuals appointed or designated contrary to civil service law.
2. Whether the doctrine of laches bars the proceeding.

Holding

1. Yes, because eligibles on a civil service list from which a position is to be filled are directly and substantially affected by the failure to comply with the law.
2. No, because failure to comply with constitutional requirements for appointments of eligibles to competitive positions is a continuing and constitutional wrong.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the petitioners, as candidates who passed the civil service exam and were placed on the eligible list, had a direct and substantial interest in ensuring compliance with civil service laws. The court distinguished its prior holding in Matter of Donohue v. Cornelius, noting that the petitioner there was not personally aggrieved in the same way as those on an eligible list. The Court stated, “When a civil service examination is given, the public, especially those who sit for that examination, are led to believe that appointment will be made according to law. If appointments are made contrary to law then an eligible should be allowed to compel lawful appointments so that he may receive consideration if his number is reached.” The Court emphasized that restrictions on standing should be expanded rather than contracted, especially when necessary to ensure public scrutiny and judicial oversight of potentially unlawful appointments. The court found that the doctrine of laches did not apply, because the alleged violations of the civil service law were ongoing.