Matter of Howard v. Town of Clarkstown, 48 N.Y.2d 554 (1979)

An employee in the unclassified civil service of a suburban town serves at the pleasure of the town board and can be removed without a hearing or for reasons other than misconduct or incompetence, unless otherwise provided by local law.

Summary

This case concerns the dismissal of the head of the engineering department for the Town of Clarkstown. The petitioner, Howard, argued that his term of office was governed by Section 53-c of the Town Law, which fixes the term of office for department heads in suburban towns. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that even if Section 53-c applied, it explicitly states that appointees are “removable at the pleasure of the town board.” Moreover, Section 53-a places department heads in the unclassified civil service, and those employees do not have the same protections against dismissal as those in the classified service.

Facts

The Town of Clarkstown is a suburban town. The petitioner, Howard, was the head of the town’s engineering department. Howard was dismissed from his position by the town board. Howard challenged his dismissal, arguing that his term of office was governed by Section 53-c of the Town Law, which fixed a definite term. He asserted that this section provided him with greater job security.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court, where the petitioner sought to challenge his dismissal. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Section 24 of the Town Law or Article 3-A, specifically Section 53-c, governs the petitioner’s term of office.
2. Whether a department head in a suburban town’s unclassified civil service is protected from dismissal without a hearing or for reasons other than misconduct or incompetence.

Holding

1. The court did not explicitly decide which section applied, but held that the result would be the same under either Section 24 or Section 53-c.
2. No, because Section 53-c states that appointees are “removable at the pleasure of the town board unless otherwise provided by local law,” and Section 53-a places department heads in the unclassified civil service, which does not afford the same protections as the classified service.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that even if Section 53-c applied, it explicitly states that appointees are “removable at the pleasure of the town board unless otherwise provided by local law”. The court also noted that Section 53-a places department heads of suburban towns “in the unclassified service.” The court relied on Matter of Glazer v Hankin, 50 AD2d 924, which held that a person in the unclassified civil service is not protected by Section 75 of the Civil Service Law against dismissal without a hearing or for other than misconduct or incompetency. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument that Section 53-c provided him with greater job security was without merit. The court reasoned that the lack of statutory protection for unclassified civil service employees means they serve at the pleasure of the appointing board. The court’s reasoning underscores the importance of understanding the distinction between classified and unclassified civil service positions and the differing levels of job security associated with each.