Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. William F. Peabody, Respondent, v. Arthur Woods, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-12-12
Citations: 219 N.Y. 643
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. William F. Peabody, Respondent, v. Arthur Woods, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 219
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. William F. Peabody, Respondent, v. Arthur Woods, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Appellant.
People ex rel. Peabody v. Woods, 171 App. Div. 684, affirmed.
(Argued November 23, 1916;
decided December 12, 1916.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 28, 1916, which reversed a determination of the defendant dismissing the relator from the police force of the city of New York upon charges of “neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and violation of rules,” the specifications being: “First. That at 3:55 p. M., October -3rd, 1914, relator entered himself as being on duty in the Police Blotter in á space left for that purpose, preceding an entry made by the Police Commissioner in such blotter at 3:50 p. M. of'the same day, in violation of Paragraph 486 of the Rules and Regulations of the Police Department. Second. That relator failed and neglected to enforce compliance with the rules and regulations on the part of Lieutenant Adams, in that he failed and neglected to take any action towards preferring charges against the said Adams, who had failed and neglected to make entries in the blotter accurately and concisely in chronological order as required by said Paragraph 486 of the rules and regulations, although Adams had subsequently informed the said Captain Peabody of that fact; this is charged to be in violation of Paragraph 14 of the rules and regulations of the Police Department.” The third specification charges the commission of “a disorder to the prejudice of good order, efficiency and discipline.”
Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel {Frank Julian Price and Thomas F. Magner of counsel), for appellant.
Moses H. Crossman for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, on the ground that no question of law is presented for review; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Not voting: Cuddebaok, J.