-
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered May 30, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant has demonstrated that the maximum age limitation for appointment of New York City police officers (Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-109) bears a rational relationship to legitimate purposes and, therefore, suffers from no infirmity under the State and Federal Equal Protection Clauses (see, Timerman v Bence, 176 AD2d 1220). The age limitation, contained in a special law, has not been impliedly repealed by the general City and State Human Rights Laws (Administrative Code § 8-107 [a]; Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council v New York City Dept, of Sanitation, 83 NY2d 215, 222-223). Plaintiffs did not suffer a deprivation of due process by virtue of defendant’s failure to include the age limitation on the notice of examination, because passing the examination did not confer a right to appointment (Civil Service Law § 61; Matter of Cassidy v Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn., 37 NY2d 526).
We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
Document Info
Citation Numbers: 244 A.D.2d 205, 664 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11387
Filed Date: 11/13/1997
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024