Case ID: nys_99/html/0957-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BLANCHARD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(49 Misc. Rep. 440.)
    MORRIS v. BAKER et al., Municipal Civil Service Com’rs.
    
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    February, 1906.)
    Municipal Corporations—Civil Service Commission—Policemen—Promotion.
    Under Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 99, c. 378, § 288, the municipal service commission has the power to pass a resolution providing that, in computing the relative weight of the subjects of rating in promotion examination, comparative conduct and efficiency in the grade from which the promotion is sought shall count a certain percentage, • and to adopt a resolution thereafter that in fixing the relative ratings only such commendations and honorable mentions shall be considered as have been awarded as a result of personal bravery, and it cannot be compelled by-mandamus to revise the marking of policemen so as to include credit for a certain act of meritorious service of a policeman not involving personal bravery.
    Motion by William J. Morris for a writ of mandamus against William F. Baker and others, municipal service commissioners.
    Motion denied.
    Weed, Henry & Meyers (Richmond Weed, of counsel), for petitioner.
    John J. Delaney, Corporation Counsel (William B. Crowell, of counsel), for respondents.
    
      
      Affirmed in 97 N. Y. Supp. 1144.
    
   BLANCHARD, J.

This is a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus against the respondents, as commissioners composing the municipal civil service commission of New York city, directing them to revise and rerate the marking of petitioner in an examination for promotion in the police department from roundsman to sergeant, and to include in the revised marking credit for a certain act of meritorious police service.' Pursuant to the action of the board of honor in the police department the petitioner was commended for meritorious service in assisting in the recovery of bodies and in the care of the dead and injured upon the occasion of the Slocum disaster. Rule 15 of the rules of municipal civil service commission provides that, in computing the relative weight of subjects of rating in promotion examinations, “comparative conduct and efficiency in previous service” in the “position or grade from which promotion is sought” shall count 40, and, further, directs that, in order to provide such data, efficiency records shall be kept in the department. Subsequent to the promulgation of this rule, and before the examination of thé petitioner in question, the municipal civil service commission adopted the resolution “that in fixing the relative ratings on the record of candidates in promotion examinations in the police and fire departments only such commendations and honorable mentions shall be considered as shall have been awarded as a result of individual acts of personal bravery.” The municipal civil service commission seems to have been quite within its powers in passing and enforcing the resolution above mentioned, for the purpose of defining what particular forms of meritorious service recorded in the efficiency record of any candidate should be considered in a competitive examination. This discretionary power seems plainly to be recognized in section 288 of the Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 99, c. 378. Since the meritorious service of the petitioner was admittedly not an individual act of personal bravery, the municipal civil service commission was quite justified in excluding credit therefor in its rating upon his examination.

Motion denied, with $10 costs. »