Case ID: nys_112/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE ex rel. LEET v. HEINS, State Architect.
    (127 App. Div. 930.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
    June 18, 1908.)
    Ceetiobabi—Review.
    The removal by the State Architect of a building inspector, after a fair trial, on charges preferred by the chief inspector, the architect deciding that the inspector was incompetent and guilty of misconduct, cannot, under Code Civ. Proc. § 2140, relative to questions to be determined on certiorari, be disturbed; there having been competent proof of the facts necessary to be proved to authorize the determination, and it being impossible to say that there was such a preponderance of proof against the existence of any of those facts that, if the determination was based on the verdict of a jury, it could be set aside as against the weight of evidence.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Certiorari, § 38.]
    Certiorari, on the relation of Charles M. Leet, directed to George L. Heins, as State Architect, commanding him to certify and return all and singular his proceedings in relation to the removal of relator from his position as building inspector.
    Determination confirmed.
    Argued before SMITH, P. J., and CHESTER, KELLOGG, SEW-ELL, and COCHRANE, JJ.
    Michael D. Nolan, for relator.
    William Schuyler Jackson, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

After a fair trial upon charges preferred by the chief inspector, the State Architect decided that the relator, a veteran of the Civil War, was incompetent and guilty of misconduct in his position as building inspector, and removed him therefrom. A careful examination of the evidence convinces us that there was competent proof of the facts necessary to be proved to authorize the making of the determination, and we are not able to say that there was such a preponderance of proof against the existence of any of those facts that, if the determination was based upon the verdict of a jury affirming the existence thereof, we would be justified in setting it aside as against the weight of the evidence. That being so, we feel compelled, under section 2140 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs our hearing of the matter, to confirm the determination.

Determination confirmed, with $50 costs.