Case Name: The People ex rel. John R. Fellows, Jr., Relator, v. William N. Dykman et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-10
Citations: 29 Misc. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. John R. Fellows, Jr., Relator, v. William N. Dykman et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. John R. Fellows, Jr., Relator, v. William N. Dykman et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
October, 1899.)
Civil seryice — Employee, appointed before chap. 370 Laws of 1899, entitled to a certificate under that act that he has been employed according to law and the rules.
Under section 19 of the Civil Service Law (Laws of 1899, chap. 370), relating to disbursing officers, a municipal civil service commission may be-compelled by mandamus to certify that a city employee “ has been employed * * * in pursuance of law and of the rules made in pursuance of law ”, whether he was appointed before or after the formulation of rules under the statute of 1899.
Motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus.
John C. Shaw, for relator.
Charles Blandy (John Whalen, Corporation Counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
Gieqebioh, J.
It would appear that section 19 of the Civil Service Law of 1899 (Laws of 1899, chap. 370) requires in the case of an employee of a city, the certificate of the municipal civil service commission therein as to the legality of the appointment, in every case, whether it was made before or after the formulation of rules under that act. The form of the certificate, however, is to be the same in each case; therefore the words "in pursuance of the rules made in pursuance of law," as required in the certificate, can he intended to have application only to such rules as may have been in existence when the particular appointment was made, and are not confined to the rules adopted under the act of 1899. This motion is not opposed upon the ground that the applicant's original appointment was in any way irregular, and the mere fact that he was not appointed under the rules of 1899 does not justify the commissioners in their refusal to certify that the applicant has been " employed in pursuance of law and of the rules made in pursuance of law."
Accordingly the applicant is, I think, entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to give a certificate in conformity with the provisions of the act first above cited.
Application granted.