Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of James P. Reddy, Relator, for a Writ of Certiorari to the President and Trustees of the Village of Ossining, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-01-05
Citations: 148 A.D. 725
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of James P. Reddy, Relator, for a Writ of Certiorari to the President and Trustees of the Village of Ossining, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 725–727

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of James P. Reddy, Relator, for a Writ of Certiorari to the President and Trustees of the Village of Ossining, Respondents.
Second Department,
January 5, 1912.
Municipal corporations — dismissal of police officer, village of Ossining — failure to grant request for adjournment — certiorari — charter construed— notice.
A determination of the trustees of the village of Ossining dismissing a policeman charged with intoxication while on duty will be annulled and the proceedings remitted for a new trial where it appears that the relator had only twenty-four hours’ notice of the hearing; that he wrote to the trustees stating that he was advised by his physician that he could not appear at that time and hoped that the excuse would be satisfactory, where no member of the board expressed any disbelief in the truth of the relator’s illness, and one of them had received a message from the relator’s father stating that he' was too ill to appear and that a physician’s certificate would be presented. The letter was tantamount to a request for an adjournment and under such circumstances an adjournment should have been granted.
In reviewing the propriety of the action of the trustees the Appellate Division on certiorari cannot consider the affidavit of the relator’s physician presented on his application for the writ.
Section 151 of the charter of the village of Ossining prohibiting such removal from office except for cause shown based upon charges preferred in writing, and after a hearing, implies a right to a reasonable notice of the hearing.
Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 21st day of April, 1911, directed to the president and trustees of the village of Ossining, commanding them to return to the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester all and singular their proceedings had concerning the dismissal of the relator from the police force of the village of Ossining.
Edgar L. Ryder, for the relator.
T. George Barnes, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Jenks, P. J.:
The relator, a policeman of the village of Ossining, was charged with intoxication when in uniform and on duty on February 5, 1911. The charge was preferred by the chief of police on February 7th, the relator was served with notice of hearing by the trustees of the village on February 9th at 3:30 for February 10 at 8 p.m., and on the date last named he was dismissed the force. At the- hearing he neither appeared nor was represented by counsel. At the opening of the meeting of the trustees on February 10th, one of. their number produced and read a communication in writing " just handed " to him by the chief of police, subscribed by the relator and addressed to the "Police Committee," wherein he wrote that under the advice of his doctor he was unable to appear that evening and expressed the hope that it " will be satisfactory to your Committee." The said trustee stated that he did not see how they could accept the note, as it should have been accompanied by a doctor's certificate, and expressed the opinion that they should proceed. Thereupon they called certain witnesses, and at the close of their examination, after inquiry from .the president whether there was any one who desired to testify for the relator, without response, followed by inquiry whether the corporation counsel had anything "to add," and after response that the counsel had' nothing to add, the board forthwith unanimously passed the resolve of dismissal.
We think that there was too short a shift under the circumstances. The relator, served but little more than 24 hours before the hearing with notice thereof, notified the trustees that under the advice of his doctor he could not appear that evening, and expressed the hope that it would be satisfactory, which was tantamount to the request for an adjournment.No member of the board expressed any disbelief of the truth of the statement. Moreover, before the witnesses were called one of the trustees stated that he had received a telephone message from the relator's father, Trustee- Reddy, that the relator was too ill to appear, and that a certificate of a doctor would be presented. The conduct of the board in proceeding forthwith, which was tantamount to a denial of a postponement, and the propriety of this act under the circumstances, may be considered. (People ex rel. Coughlin v. Webster, 98 App. Div. 581.) In reviewing that course we cannot consider the affidavit of the physician presented on the application for the writ, whereby it appears that this physician found the relator ill with the grippe on February 10, forbade him to go to the meeting as it was unsafe, told him to write to the trustees, promised to send a certificate and forgot to do so. (People ex rel Miller v. Wurster, 149 N. Y. 549.) But we think that the board under the circumstances should have granted a reasonable adjournment. Moreover, section 151 of the village charter (Laws of 1910, chap. 667) prescribes that the relator "shall not be removed therefrom except for cause shown, based upon charges preferred in writing and after a hearing." While there is no express direction as to notice, the provision quoted of course implies a reasonable notice. We think under the circumstances that the time afforded was hardly reasonable. Even if the evidence established that the relator was in the physical and mental condition charged, yet evidence might be forthcoming that such condition should not be regarded as an offense. (People ex rel. Hogan v. French, 119 N. Y. 493.) Without expression upon the probative force of the testimony adduced, we think that the determination should be annulled and the proceedings remitted for a new trial before the trustees, costs to abide the event.
Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Determination annulled and proceedings remitted for a new trial before the trustees, costs to abide the event.