Case Name: In the Matter of Frank H. Maurizio et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. Solomon Hoberman, as Personnel Director, Department of Personnel, and as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and James Flanagan, Jr., et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenors-Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1972-04-11
Citations: 39 A.D.2d 524
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Frank H. Maurizio et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. Solomon Hoberman, as Personnel Director, Department of Personnel, and as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and James Flanagan, Jr., et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenors-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Frank H. Maurizio et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. Solomon Hoberman, as Personnel Director, Department of Personnel, and as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and James Flanagan, Jr., et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenors-Appellants.

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County entered on March 26, 1971, confirming the report of the Special Referee with reference to rating examination papers of certain civil service workers, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The duty of establishing the requirements for the promotional examination is conferred on the respondents alone, and may not be interfered with by the courts if fairly exercised. The omission of the respondents to participate in this appeal might well imply conformance with the views of Special Term. Nevertheless, the courts may not exercise the power or discharge the duty of the respondents. (Matter of Wirzberger v. Watson, 305 N. Y. 507.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Nunez, Murphy, McNally and Capozzoli, JJ.