Case Name: In the Matter of Richard Daly, Appellant, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1939-04-11
Citations: 280 N.Y. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Richard Daly, Appellant, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 280
Pages: 210–216

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Richard Daly, Appellant, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
Argued February 21, 1939;
decided April 11, 1939.
L. W. Widdecombe and A. B. Widdecombe for appellant.
Petitioner was duly appointed law assistant in the office of the Surrogate of Richmond county. (People ex rel. Tyng v. Prendergast, 164 N. Y. Supp. 1042; 178 App. Div. 895; 221 N. Y. 659.) It was not necessary for the Surrogate to conform to the terms and conditions of the 1938 budget in filling the vacancy. (Matter of La Rocca v. Flynn, 257 N. Y. 5; People ex rel. Prendergast v. Cohalan, 101 Misc. Rep. 712; 179 App. Div. 883; 226 N. Y. 636; Forbes v. Cohen, 254 App. Div. 548; People ex rel. O’Loughlin v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 377; People ex rel. Wingate v. Taylor, 279 N. Y. 246; Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N. Y. 406.) The
attempted abolition of the position by the Board of Estimate is ineffectual. (People ex rel. Machen v. Hayes, 115 Misc. Rep. 373; 199 App. Div. 930; 233 N. Y. 542; Matter of Rushford v. LaGuardia, 169 Misc. Rep. 581; 255 App. Div. 597; Forbes v. Cohen, 254 App. Div. 548; Whitmore v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 21; Schieffelin v. Leary, 219 App. Div. 660; Dodge v. City of New York, 252 App. Div. 631; 278 N. Y. 25; People ex rel. O’Loughlin v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 377.)
William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Davidson Sommers and William S. Gaud, Jr., of counsel), for respondents.
Petitioner was not validly appointed to the position of law assistant since no certificate was obtained from the Budget Director as the budget required. (Coggeshall v. Hennessey, 279 N. Y. 438; People ex rel. Plancon v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 252; Matter of Dobrovolny v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 280; Matter of Flaherty v. Craig, 226 N. Y. 76.) The position of law assistant was duly abolished by the Board of Estimate. (Thoma v. City of New York, 263 N. Y. 402; People ex rel. Plancon v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 262; Buckbee v. Board of Education, 115 App. Div. 366; 187 N. Y. 544; Sauerbrunn v. Board of Education, 150 App. Div. 407; 208 N. Y. 550; Dixon v. LaGuardia, 277 N. Y. 84; Walters v. City of New York, 190 N. Y. 375; People ex rel. Stokes v. Tully, 108 App. Div. 345.)

Opinion:
Finch, J.
The unanimous decision of the Appellate Division was correct and the order appealed from should be affirmed.
The primary question presented is whether the Surrogate of Richmond county should comply with the provision of the 1938 budget of the city of New York, providing that in filling a vacancy application should be made to the Director of the Budget, giving a description of the duties performed by the former incumbent and the reasons why the duties could not be distributed among the other employees in the office. The Director of the Budget would then investigate and, based on his findings, either grant or deny the request in writing, thus guarding against the use of city funds more urgently needed elsewhere. This certificate of the Director of the Budget must be filed with the Comptroller of the city before the latter will pay the proposed incumbent. Pursuant to this budgetary requirement, the Surrogate of Bichmond county originally made such written application but later withdrew the same. An appointment was then made, disregarding this requirement of the 1938 budget as to filling vacancies. Such a certificate has been held by this court to be a reasonable restriction upon the power of selection and appointment. (People ex rel. Plancon v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 252; Matter of Dobrovolny v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 280.) Even judicial officers may not ignore reasonable budgetary restrictions. (Matter of Flaherty v. Craig, 226 N. Y. 76.)
The petitioner, therefore, was never validly appointed and in consequence is not in a position to test the validity of the abolition of the office.
It follows that the order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.