discussing that in Matter of Ryan v. Vars, 224 A.D. 773, 230 N.Y.S. 903 (1928), “Ryan was decided by us to be a legislative employee and, therefore, in the unclassified service and not subject to the Civil Service Law.”
How later courts described this case
- discussing that in Matter of Ryan v. Vars, 224 A.D. 773, 230 N.Y.S. 903 (1928), “Ryan was decided by us to be a legislative employee and, therefore, in the unclassified service and not subject to the Civil Service Law.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Van Kirk, P. J. (concurring).
The petitioner was a bridge tender and not a legislative employee. The fact alone that an incumbent is appointed or elected by a legislative body is not conclusive. To be a legislative employee his main duties must in some manner be connected with the functioning of a legislative body. (Matter of O’Grady v. Polk, 132 App. Div. 47 ; People ex rel. Martin v. Scully, 56 id. 302.) In Matter of Ryan v. Vars ( 224 App. Div. 773 ) the petitioner was held to be a legislative employee, being a watchman in the court house which was the home of the legislative body, and was performing duties directly related to the functioning of that body; he was, therefore, in the unclassified *217 service. Stowe, the petitioner in this case, was in the classified service, as was the petitioner in Matter of McNeles v. Board of Supervisors ( 173 App. Div. 411 ; affd., 219 N. Y. 578 ).