Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. DONOVAN v. CANTOR et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-12-18
Citations: 85 N.Y.S. 406
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DONOVAN v. CANTOR et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 85
Pages: 406–413

Head Matter:
(89 App. Div. 50.)
PEOPLE ex rel. DONOVAN v. CANTOR et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 18, 1903.)
1. Mandamus—Municipal Civil Service—Abolition of Office—Similarity of Newly Created Position.
Greater New York Charter, § 1543 (3 Laws 1897, p. 541, c. 378), declares that whenever, in any department of the city civil service, a position or employment is abolished, persons legally holding the position thus abolished shall be entitled to reinstatement in the same or in a corresponding position if within one year there is need for their services, and that the municipal civil service commission shall determine as to what employés are so entitled to re-employment. Held, that the determination of the commission as to whether or not newly created positions are similar to those which have been abolished involves the exercise of discretion, which is not reviewable by mandamus.
Patterson and Laughlin, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Application by the people on the relation of Bartholomew Donovan for mandamus against Jacob Cantor, as president of the borough of Manhattan, and others, to require respondents to certify the name of and appoint relator to the position of superintendent of public baths and public comfort stations in the city of New York. From a judgment awarding the writ, respondents appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McRAUGHRIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and RAUGHRIN, JJ.
W. B. Crowell, for appellants.
Roger Foster, for respondent.

Opinion:
McRAUGHRIN, J.
The facts involved in this appeal are not in dispute, and, as they are fully and correctly set out in the opinion of Mr. Justice RAUGHRIN, it is unnecessary to restate them.
Under the statute, the position held by the relator having been abolished, and his name returned as an employé suspended without pay, it was the duty of the municipal civil service commission to determine whether the duties of the newly created positions were the same as, or similar to, those performed by the relator in the position previously held by him. If they were similar, then the relator was entitled to have his name certified to, and be appointed by, the president of the borough to one or the other of such new positions; otherwise not. Section 1543, Greater New York Charter (3 Laws 1897, p. 541, c. 378). The municipal civil service commission determined that 'the duties of the newly created positions were not similar to those performed by the relator in his former position, and refused to certify his name. Therefore the president of the borough had no right to make the appointment. The act of the commission in making this determination was quasi judicial in character. It necessarily required the commission to pass upon questions of fact, and involved the exercise of judgment upon its part; and this, as it seems to me, was the end of the matter. It is a universal rule that, in the discharge of duties involving the exercise of judgment or discretion, a public official must be left free to act, and cannot by mandamus be compelled to act one way or the other. In other words, in such cases the courts have no power to direct what shall be done. This rule was tersely stated by Judge Vann in People ex rel. Harris v. Commissioners, 149 N. Y. 26, 43 N. E. 418. He said:
"When the law requires a public officer to do a specified act in a specified way, upon, a conceded state of facts, without regard to his own judgment as to the propriety of the act, and no power to exercise discretion, the duty is ministerial in character, and performance may be compelled by mandamus if there is no other remedy. When, however, the law requires a judicial determination to be made, such as the decision of a question of fact, or the exercise of judgment whether the act should be done or not, the duty is regarded as judicial, and mandamus will not lie to compel performance."
Here, from the very nature of things, the municipal civil service commission must have exercised its judgment upon the facts as to whether the duties of the positions referred to were similar, and its conclusion cannot be reviewed by mandamus. To hold otherwise is to nullify the statute which confers upon the commission the duty of making the determination by substituting in its place a court or jury to pass upon the facts, and this the court ought not to do in the absence of legislative authority. The case, in principle, is precisely like People ex rel. Sims v. Collier, 175 N. Y. 196, 67 N. E. 309; and upon reason, as well as upon the strength of this authority, it seems to me the order appealed from should be reversed, and the writ quashed, with $50 costs and disbursements.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., concurs.