Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Buckley, Respondent, v. Theodore Roosevelt and Others, as Police Commissioners of the City of New York, Constituting the Board of Police Commissioners of the Police Department of the City of New York, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-07
Citations: 19 A.D. 431
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Buckley, Respondent, v. Theodore Roosevelt and Others, as Police Commissioners of the City of New York, Constituting the Board of Police Commissioners of the Police Department of the City of New York, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 431–434

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Buckley, Respondent, v. Theodore Roosevelt and Others, as Police Commissioners of the City of New York, Constituting the Board of Police Commissioners of the Police Department of the City of New York, Appellants.
Police commissioners acting as civil service examiners ■—their action is discretionary and cannot be reviewed by certioi'a/ri— they cannot be required to retusm the records of other competitor's.
The action of a board of police commissioners, acting as examiners, under the Civil Service Law, of an applicant for promotion in the police force of a city, cannot be reviewed by certiorari; the method of examination, with the result reached by them in the exercise of their judgment as examiners, must rest necessarily within their discretion, and does not involve a judicial determination.
A candidate for promotion, who deems himself aggrieved by the rating which has been given him upon such an examination, cannot compel the examining board to return their records of the examination of other and successful applicants, with a view to having the court re-examine all the papers and determine whether or not the rejected candidate is entitled to a higher place on the eligible list, in comparison with those who were preferred to him, than that which was awarded him.
Appeal by tíie defendants, Theodore Roosevelt and others, as police commissioners of the city of Yew York, constituting the board of police commissioners of the police department of' the city of Yew York, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Yew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Yew York on the 6th day of May, 1897, directing them to file a further return to the writ of certiorari issued in. the proceeding.
The writ of certiorari was issued to review the acts of the' defendants in rating the relator as the result of a competitive examination held under the civil service rules. The defendants having failed to return the records of the relator’s competitors, the order appealed from was made requiring their return.
Terence Farley, for the appellants.
Daniel P. Hays, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.:
The relator, being a roundsman of the police force of the city of New York and a candidate for promotion, was examined'under the civil service rules. Upon such examination he received a rating of twenty and ninety, one-hundredths out of ;a possible thirty-five Upon his' record he was given a rating of thirty out of a possible' sixty-five. By this marking, he receiving a lower rating than that required to place him upon the eligible list for promotion to sergeant,. The relator imagined that he was un justly treated by this rating, and by this, writ he seeks to review the action of the board of police in giving him the rating-that it did.
It is a somewhat novel application of-.this writ to allow it to be used to review the action of a. hoard rating an applicant for-appointment under the civil service'rules, and thus to appeal- from the judgment of the examiners in giving him the rating that in .their judgment was proper. That such action cannot be reviewed by certiorari seems to be' perfectly clear.- •Examiners, or commissioners acting as examiners under the Civil Service Law, are not judicial officers, nor do they perform judicial functions so that their examinations 'can--be reviewed by certiorari. Certain power is. given to such examiners to. test the qualifications of the applicants for public office, and the method of such examination, with the result arrived at,' in the exercise of the judgment of the examiners, upon the examination' had before them, must, necessarily rest within their discretion, and is not a judicial determination of the question presented to them. But even assuming that this court could review on certiorari the determination of the commissioners as to the rating given to this relator, it is entirely clear that the records of the other applicants, used; by the commissioners in rating- Such' other applicants, have nothing to do with the.action of the. commissioners in rating this relator. What the commissioners had to do was to determine what-rating should be awarded to this relator for his police service. That depended partly upon the ability with which he had performed .police duty, and had no possible relation to the police duty performed- by other members of the force. To compel, upon an application of oné' defeated .candidate in a competitive -examination for position, the examiners or commissioners to return the examination of all the successful candidates to the court,"and then to ask the-Court to re-examine all of these papers and determine whether or not the defeated candidate should have been in a better place in comparison with those who were placed before him, is certainly not within the purview of a writ of certiorari. There is nothing to call upon the court then to review the action of those upon whom the responsibility is placed of determining the standing of' the candidates for public office.
We think the order was wrong, and it is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursemements, and the motion denied, with. ten. dollars costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., Williams, Patterson and O'Brien, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Ciisies DETERMINED IN THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION, ' %xch¿f 1897.