Case Name: SHAUGHNESSY v. FORNES et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-06-20
Citations: 77 N.Y.S. 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHAUGHNESSY v. FORNES et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 77
Pages: 223–227

Head Matter:
(73 App. Div. 462.)
SHAUGHNESSY v. FORNES et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 20, 1902.)
Civil Service Law—Construction—Municipal Officers—Sergeants at Arms.
A sergeant at arms of the New York City council and his assistants must be regarded as confidential employes or appointees, within the civil service law (Laws 1899, c. 370, § 21), which expressly declares that it shall not apply to such appointees, as it is a matter of common information that persons holding such positions bear confidential relations to the bodies with which they are connected, and, besides, the city civil service commission has listed such positions as confidential.
Laugblin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Application by John J. Shaughnessy for a peremptory writ of mandamus against Charles V. Fornes and others, constituting the board of aldermen of the city of New York. From an order denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
T. H. York, for appellant.
W. B. Crowell, for respondents.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, J.
The application of the petitioner in this matter for a writ of mandamus was denied at the special term, and from the order entered upon such denial this appeal is taken.
The petitioner, a veteran of the Union army in the late Civil War, was on the 6th day of December, 1898, appointed an assistant sergeant at arms of the council of the city of New York, pursuant to section 27 of the Greater New York charter. At the time of his appointment the municipal assembly consisted of the council and the board of aldermen. By an amendment of the Greater New York charter, passed in the year 1901 (chapter 446, Laws 1901), the leg islative power of the city of New York became vested in the board of aldermen of the city of New York,.the council being thus abolished, and all the powers exercised and performed by the municipal assembly were devolved upon the board of aldermen. Among other'things, it is within the power of the board of aldermen to appoint sergeants at arms and assistants. The petitioner, being a veteran of the Civil War, and having been an assistant sergeant at arms of the council of the city of New York, claims that upon the abolition of that body he was entitled to be transferred to a similar position in the board of aldermen of the city of New York, and that claim is made under section 21 of chapter 370 of the Laws of 1899. Such a contention - would receive recognition, and the petitioner would be entitled to appointment as assistant sergeant at arms of the board of aldermen, were it not for-that provision of section 21 of chapter, 370 of the Laws of 1899 which expressly states that "nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to the position of private secretary or deputy of any official or department or to any other person holding a strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer." The papers before the court on this motion disclose the fact that the sergeant at arms and assistants are confidential employés or appointees. That persons holding such positions bear confidential relations to the bodies with which they are connected is a matter of common information. The municipal civil service commission of the city of New York have placed sergeants at arms in the noncompetitive list, ranking these positions as confidential; and, while that is not conclusive of the subject, yet it furnishes the interpretation put upon the law by those authorized, and required by the law to make the distinctions and classifications of those seeking appointment to office under the municipal government of the city of New York.
For the reason that the position is a confidential one, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, J., concur.