Case Name: John Ramsay, Respondent, v. Nicholas J. Hayes, Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, as Trustee of the New York Fire Department Relief Fund, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-04-20
Citations: 112 A.D. 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Ramsay, Respondent, v. Nicholas J. Hayes, Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, as Trustee of the New York Fire Department Relief Fund, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 442–449

Head Matter:
John Ramsay, Respondent, v. Nicholas J. Hayes, Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, as Trustee of the New York Fire Department Relief Fund, Appellant.
Second Department,
April 20, 1906.
Evidence — municipal corporations—burden on fire commissioner of city of New York assigning retired fireman less than statutory pension to show that the fund is inadequate,
Section 790 of the charter of the city of Greater New York, which entitles a fireman retired after ten years of active and continuous service to a pension equal to one-half of his annual'compensation when retired, “or suplí less sum in proportion t<tf the number of officers and members so retired as the condition of the fund will warrant," casts the burden on a fire commissioner, who assigns to a retired fireman a pension,less than one-half of his former salary, to show that the fund does not warrant the payment of the full amount. This is so because said clause is in the nature of a proviso which the fireman is not required to- negative, and also because the matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the fire commissioner. • - ' ,
Hooker and Gaynor, Jj., dissented, wit! opinions.
Appeal by the defendant, Hicholas J. Hayes, fire Commissioner of the city of Hew York, as trustee, etc., from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the. plaintiff, entered i-n the office of the clerk of the county of -Kings on the 21th day of February, 1905, upon the decision of the court rendered after a-trial at the Kings County Special Term. • '
James D. Bell [John J. Delany with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Charles J. Ryan, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Rich, J.:
This is'an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the facts are as follows-: The plaintiff, who had been in the employ of the fire department of the city of Brooklyn •and Greater Hew -York for more than ten years, was retired in March, 1903. The order retiring the plaintiff allowed him $533-.33 per annum, whereas plaintiff claims that he was entitled to one-half his.salary as pension, or $800 per annum. The plaintiff - alleged that the difference" between $533.33 and $800 was due him, and the fire commissioner claims it was not. The act set up by the fire commissioner is as follows: " After ten years' active and continuous service in the said fire department, the amount of annual pension to be allowed shall be one-lialf of the annual compensation allowed such officer of member as salary at the date of his retirement from the service, or such less sum in proportion to the number of officers and members so retired as the condition cf the fund will warrant." (Greater N. Y. Charter [Laws of 1901, chap. 466], § 790.) The fire commissioner claims he had a perfect right to reduce the amount payable to the plaintiff; he also claims that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the commissioner was not warranted in paying him the less amount. The real question here then is on whom is the burden of proof. The defendant claims that the presumption is in his favor; that his acts as an official were correctly and legally done. 1 believe that the qualifying clause in this statute is in the nature of a proviso and that the principles discussed in Harris v. White (81 N. Y. 532) and Rowell v. Janvrin (151 id. 67) do apply, and that the burden is not upon plaintiff to negative the proviso clause of the statute; that he properly pleaded that portion of the clause under which he claims to maintain his conte'ntion and that if the commissioner is acting under the proviso the burden is upon him to allege and prove that the funds were insufficient to meet the demands upon them. Again, the facts wére " peculiarly within the knowledge " of defendant, and the burden was, therefore, upon him. (1 Greenl. Ev. [15th ed.] § 79.)
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hooker and Gaynor, JJ., dissented.