Case ID: ad_98/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hatch, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick Reilly, Relator, v. Benjamin Hoffman, as Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York for the Fifth District of the Borough of Manhattan, Respondent.
    
      Removal of a court attendant, a veteran of the Spanish war, by a justice of the Municipal Court of the city of New York —it can only be “ after a hearing upon due notice and upon stated charges” with the right to such attendant "to a review by a writ of certiorari" — the fact that Jiis term of appointment had expired is immaterial.
    
    Section 1373 of the revised Greater New York charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466), as amended hy chapter 497 of the Laws of 1903, which authorizes a justice of the Municipal Court of the city of New York to remove an attendant employed about the court, upon giving him notice of the cause of his proposed removal and an opportunity to make an explanation, is to be construed, in the case of a veteran of the Spanich-American war, in connection with and is limited by section 91 of the Civil Service Law (Laws of 1899, chap. 370, as amd. by Laws 1909, chap. 970), which provides that no honorably discharged soldier who served in the volunteer army of the United States during the Spanish war shall be removed from the position or employment held by him except for incompetence or misconduct shown “after a hearing upon due notice, upen stated charges, and with the right to such employee or appointee to a review by a writ of certiorari.”
    The fact that at the time when an honorably discharged veteran of the Spanish war was discharged, from his position as an attendant in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, without a Hearing upon due notice, in violation of said section 91 of the Civil Service Law, his term of appointment had expired, is not fatal to his right to obtain reinstatement in certiorari proceedings, where it appears that he was not removed because his term of appointment had expired and that at the time he was removed he was recognized as properly holding his position.
    Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 3d day of March, 1904, directed to Benjamin Hoffman, as justice of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York for the fifth district of the borough of Manhattan, commanding him to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York all and singular his proceedings had in removing the relator from the position of court attendant in said Municipal Court.
    
      Nelson S. Spencer, for the relator.
    
      John J. Delany, for the respondent.
   Hatch, J.:

The relator is a resident and inhabitant of the State of Hew York, residing in the county of Hew York, and was at the time of his removal from his position of court attendant an honorably discharged soldier, having served as a private in the volunteer army of the United States in the Spanish-American war. Charges were preferred against the relator by the justice of the Municipal Court presiding in the fifth district. The relator appeared upon the day set for a hearing of the charges and demanded that the same be made more definite, and also informed the justice that he was a veteran of the Spanish-American war and was entitled to a trial and hearing before he could be removed. The demand for a hearing and trial was denied, the justice holding that he was only entitled to an opportunity to make an explanation, and beyond that relator had no rights. After hearing relator’s explanation the justice found that it was not satisfactory and adjudged him guilty of the charges and removed him from his position as attendant. The justice assumed to act pursuant to the provisions of section 1373 of the revised Greater ISTew York charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466, as amd. by Laws of 1902, chap. 497). By the provisions of this section the justice was authorized to remove an attendant and other persons employed about the court upon preferring charges and giving an opportunity for an explanation. No other hearing or trial is provided in the section. This provision of the revised charter, however, is to be construed in connection with the laws which secure the rights of veterans. By section 21 of the Civil Service Law (Laws of 1899, chap. 370, as amd. by Laws of 1902, chap. 270) it is provided that no honorably discharged soldier who served in the volunteer army of the United States during the Spanish war shall be removed from the position or employment held by him except for incompetence or misconduct shown “after a hearing upon due notice, upon stated charges, and with the right to such employee or appointee to a review by a writ of certiorari.” This court has held that this provision of law operates as a restriction upon the power of removal in the case of veterans, even though the authority under the local law to remove is at the discretion of the officer exercising the authority. (People ex rel. Thain v. Constable, 65 App. Div. 176 ; People ex rel. O'Connor v. Brady, 49 id. 238.)

The fact that the term of the appointment of the relator had expired does not militate against this view. He was not removed for such cause, and he was recognized as properly holding the position by the proceedings which were taken to effectuate his removal. It follows that such removal was without authority of law.

The writ of certiorari should be sustained, the proceedings removing the relator annulled, and the relator reinstated in his position, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien and Laughlin, JJ., concurred.

Writ sustained, proceedings annulled and relator reinstated, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.