from First Amendment protection involves many of the same factors that New York State already has considered in exempting these public employment positions from its constitutionally-mandated civil service system,” the court should grant “substantial deference” to this determination); Savitt v. Vacco, 1998 WL 690939, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Sept.28, 1998) (Pooler, J.) (“A substantial body of pre-existing Second Circuit case law holds that civil service classification is an important, albeit not conclusive factor in determining whether there is a rational connection between shared ideology and job performance”) (citations omitted); Vona v. County of Niagara, 1995 WL 222049, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. March 31, 1995), aff'd, 119 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.1997); Rini v. Zwirn, 886 F.Supp. 270, 302 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the fact that Wallikas worked in
holding that appellate courts need not discuss remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal holding that appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive holding that civil service status is not dispositive of policymaker issue holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party