Case Name: In the Matter of Conrad L. Berke, Appellant, against Joseph Schechter et al., Constituting the City Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-04-17
Citations: 5 N.Y.2d 569
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Conrad L. Berke, Appellant, against Joseph Schechter et al., Constituting the City Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 569–578

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Conrad L. Berke, Appellant, against Joseph Schechter et al., Constituting the City Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondent.
Argued January 15, 1959;
decided April 17, 1959.
Emanuel Thebner and Abraham S. Robinson for appellant.
I. The order appealed from, made by the Appellate Division, is error in law. It deprived appellant of the rule of law making the “ law of the case ” by disregarding the previous unappealed order made herein. It enlarged the order at the Special Term, limiting the issue to be tried, although no appeal was taken from such order. (Matter of Fahey v. Wright, 256 App. Div. 474; Henry v. New York Post, 168 Misc. 247, 255 App. Div. 973, 280 N. Y. 842, 281 N. Y. 665; Deyo v. Adams, 182 Misc. 459; Hornstein v. Podwitz, 254 N. Y. 443.) II. Any attempt to explore appellant’s acquittal at the court-martial is a deprivation of appellant’s constitutional rights both under the United States and New York State Constitutions. (Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U. S. 579; Woods v. Lancet, 303 N. Y. 349; Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corp., 128 F. 2d 208; United States v. Ullmann, 221 F. 2d 760.)
Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel (Henry J. Shields and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for respondents.
I. Petitioner’s appeal is limited to a review of the modification of the order of the Trial Term by the striking out of the second decretal paragraph of the order, which paragraph permitted petitioner to make a de novo application to the City Civil Service Commission. (Stark v. National City Bank of N. Y., 278 N. Y. 388; Matter of Segall, 287 N. Y. 52; Matter of City of New York [43rd Ave.], 282 N. Y. 42.) II. Since the order of the Trial Term denied petitioner’s application and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, the court was without power to include the succeeding paragraph which permits petitioner “ to apply de novo to the Civil Service Commission for a certificate and, in the event of a denial, to apply to the Court under Article 78 for an order directing certification.” (Stark v. National City Bank of N. Y., 278 N. Y. 388; Matter of McDermott v. Johnson, 2 N Y 2d 608; Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N. Y. 64; Matter of Nelson v. Kelly, 4 A D 2d 596; Matter of Gravatts v. Klozo Fastener Corp., 282 App. Div. 1014; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591, 285 N. Y. 719; Schieffelin v. Dolan, 204 App. Div. 351; Arnold v. Mayal Realty Co., 299 N. Y. 57; Matter of Van Tassell, 119 Misc. 478; Scheuer v. Martin, 250 App. Div. 46; People ex rel. Collins v. Ahearn, 120 App. Div. 95.) III. Petitioner failed to show good cause why his name should not be removed from the eligible list for patrolman. His refusal to submit handwritten specimens of the names signed to the forged checks prevented the Civil Service Commission from making its own determination of the guilt or innocence of petitioner. (People ex rel. Wood v. Board of Assessors of Bklyn., 137 N. Y. 201; People ex rel. Durant Land Improvement Co. v. Jeroloman, 139 N. Y. 14; People ex rel. Walters v. Lewis, 111 App. Div. 375; People ex rel. Cunningham v. Bingham, 134 App. Div. 602; Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 627; Matter of Lever v. Monaghan, 285 App. Div. 1161; Matter of Ben v. O’Connell, 277 App. Div. 833; People ex rel. Wood v. Department of Health of City of N. Y., 144 App. Div. 628, 202 N. Y. 610; Matter of Lynch’s Bldrs. Restaurant v. O’Connell, 303 N. Y. 408.)

Opinion:
Desmond, J.
This proceeding (Civ. Prac. Act, art. 78) was brought to review the action of the New York City Civil Service Commission in removing petitioner's name from the eligible list for appointment as patrolman, Police Department, on the ground that he had failed to show that he was a person of good character. After a trial a final order was entered which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding on the merits and, in addition, granted petitioner leave to apply de novo to the Civil Service Commission for a certification, and, in the event of a denial, to apply to the court under article 78 for an order directing certification.
From that Trial Term determination petitioner took no appeal at all to the Appellate Division although the order had in plain words defeated his petition " on the merits " (see Civ. Prac. Act, § 1295, 1300). The city appealed to the Appellate Division from so much of the lower court order as granted petitioner leave to apply anew for a certification. The Appellate Division struck out that latter provision but otherwise affirmed the Trial Term order. In so doing the Appellate Division correctly pointed out that " The dismissal of the petition on the merits determines the propriety of the act complained of, i.e., the striking of the petitioner's name from the eligible list " and that, since there was no appeal to the Appellate Division from that part of the order, it could not be reviewed in the Appellate Division. As to the second part of the Trial Term order (granting leave to petitioner to apply de novo for certification) the Appellate Division stated — again correctly — that the striking of petitioner's name had been confirmed by an order from which no appeal was taken and that there could be no certification unless of a name appearing on the eligible list.
Petitioner then appealed to this court and now asks us to review the merits of his claim. However, when he failed to appeal the " on the merits " dismissal to the Appellate Division, he lost forever his right to litigate it further. The second part of the Trial Term order (granting the right to apply de novo, etc.) is here for review but we agree with the Appellate Division that it was beyond the power of Trial Term to grant.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.