Marcus v. Ingersoll
In the Matter of Max Marcus, Respondent, Against Raymond v. Ingersoll, as President of the Borough of Brooklyn, Et Al., Appellants
Opinion of the Court
*361 Per Curiam.
The petitioner in October, 1916, was appointed junior assistant in the office of the Public Service Commission of the First District, New York city. He served under the Public Service Commission and its successor official bodies until June 18, 1923. Then he resigned. On October 8th, 1923, he was appointed a topographical draftsman, Grade C, in the office of the Borough President of Brooklyn. That appointment was provisional. He was definitively appointed to that position on December 16th, 1924. Then he was suspended for lack of work. Such suspensions must be made “ in the inverse order of original appointment in the service.” (Civil Service Law, § 31; Cons. Laws, ch. 7.) The Municipal Civil Service Commission ruled that the date of the petitioner’s original appointment was December 16th, 1924. The courts below have held that the date of the original appointment was October 25th, 1916.
Resignation of his position under the Transit Commission terminated the petitioner’s service. True, the rules of the State Civil Service Commission and the rules of the Municipal Civil Service Commission both provide that in certain circumstances a person who has resigned may be reinstated within one year without examination. Reinstatement might then have the effect of wiping out the resignation and renewed service might be traced in •unbroken fine to original appointment. Here, however, the petitioner was not reinstated in his former position, nor was he transferred to another position of the same grade or in the same service. He was given a provisional office by the city officer pending a new examination. So far as appears, the new appointment, though made within a year after the resignation, was not connected with the previous service and must be regarded as an original appointment, and forms the date from which the petitioner’s place in the order of suspension must be determined.
*362 The orders should be reversed and the proceedings dismissed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.
Orders reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.