Case Name: The People ex rel. Joseph C. Higgins v. Hugh J. Grant, Mayor, et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-03-13
Citations: 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 629
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Joseph C. Higgins v. Hugh J. Grant, Mayor, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 37
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Joseph C. Higgins v. Hugh J. Grant, Mayor, et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed March 13, 1891.)
Municipal corporations—Removal op clerk—Laws 1882, chap. 410, § 48—Civil service rules.
A clerk in a department of the city of New York is entitled to no greater rights on a proceeding to remove him because of rule 40 of the civil service rules, -endering persons dismissed for misconduct ineligible for appointment within three years.
Certiorari to review the removal of the relator from the office of the clerk in the office of the city record.-
Jas. F. Higgins, for relator; C. W. Ridgeway, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
The case of the People ex rel. Brant v. MacLean, 33 N. Y. State Rep., 974, determines most of the questions involved in this proceeding against the contention of the relator ; it is not necessary to re-discuss questions which are there settled.
It is claimed, however, that because of rule 40 of the rules of the civil service, which is to the effect that no one dismissed from service for misconduct shall" be eligible to appointment in any capacity in any department of the municipal service within three years, the relator is entitled to greater rights than would have been the case had he not incurred the penalty prescribed by this rule by being removed.
We do hot see how it is possible for the rules of the civil service to add to or detract from the statute, which would be the effect was a different construction given to the statute because of the rule than would obtain had no such rule been adopted.
The language of the statute is reasonably clear, and has been interpreted, as has been already said, contrary to the view of the relator, and, while the results of a removal should make the heads of departments careful in the imposition of this penalty, yet when they come within the statute this court cannot interfere with the result.
We think, therefore, the writ should be dismissed, without costs.
Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.