Case ID: ad_7/html/0144-01.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

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Cassidy, Relator, v. Theodore Roosevelt and Others, Police Commissioners, Composing the Board of Police of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents.
    
      Police board of New Yorkcity—removalby, of a member of the foi’ce upon testimony taken before their predecesso7’s,in office.
    
    Where the testimony, upon which the police commissioners of the city of New York acted in dismissing a member of the force, was taken before á single police commissioner, whose term of office expired, and whose associates on .the police board were removed before such testimony was acted upon by théii successors, such dismissal cannot be sustained.
    Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 3d day of July, 1895, directed to Theodore Roosevelt and others,, police commissioners, composing the hoard of police of the police department of the city of Yew York, commanding them to certify and return to the'office of the clerk of the. county of Yew York all and singular their proceedings relating to the dismissal of the relator from the police force of the city of Yew York.
    
      Louis J. Grant, for the relator.
    
      Theodore Connoly and Terence Farley, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam:

We do not think that the relator had a trial before one or more of the commissioners as required by the rules¡ There was a hearing-upon the charges preferred against the relator at which testimony was taken before Commissioner Martin, who was then a police commissioner. Before that was acted upon' by the board, Commissioner Martin’s term expired* and the other commissioners in office at- that time were removed by the mayor, and the respondents were appointed in place of the retiring and removed commissioners.

It seems to us quite clear that with the retirement or removal of the commissioners in office at the time of the hearing, the proceeding came to an end, and a new trial or hearing before the new commissioners was necessary. There is nothing to show that the commissioner before whom the testimony was taken made a report to his associates. He certainly could not have made a report to the respondents, as they were not in office when the trial took place; and Commissioner Martin, before whom the trial was had, was not in office when the respondents acted and dismissed the relator. .

We think, for this reason, that the proceedings should be reversed, and the relator reinstated, with fifty dollars costs.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Williams, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Proceedings reversed and relator reinstated, with fifty dollars costs.