Case Name: RAMSAY v. HAYES, Fire Com'r
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-04-20
Citations: 98 N.Y.S. 394
Docket Number: 
Parties: RAMSAY v. HAYES, Fire Com’r.
Judges: Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MIRRER, and GAY-NOR, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 98
Pages: 394–399

Head Matter:
(112 App. Div. 442)
RAMSAY v. HAYES, Fire Com’r.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 20, 1906.)
Municipal Coepoeations — Fibe Depaetmeniv-Pensions.
Under New York City Charter, Laws 1901, p. 331, c. 466, § 790, providing that after ten years continuous service in the fire department the amount- of annual pension to be .allowed shall be one-half the salary of the member' at the time of his retirement, or such less sum as the condition of the fund will warrant, the burden is upon the fire commissioner, when he fixes a pension at less than one-half the salary of a retired fireman, to show that the condition of the fund is such as to prevent the allowance of the full amount.
Hooker and Gaynor, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
, Action by John Ramsay against Nicholas J. Hayes, as fire commissioner of the city of New York. From a judgment for plaintiff, ■defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MIRRER, and GAY-NOR, JJ.
James D. Bell, for appellant.
Charles J. Ryan, for respondent.

Opinion:
RICH, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the facts are as follows: The plaintiff, who had been in the employ of the fire department of the city of Brooklyn and Greater New York for more than 10 years, was retired in March, 1903. The order retiring the plaintiff allowed him $533.33 per annum, whereas plaintiff claims that he was entitled to one-half his salary as pension, or $800 per annum. The plaintiff alleged that the difference between $533.33 and $800 was due him, and the fire commissioner claims it, was not. 'The act set up by the fire commissioner is as follows:
"After.-ten years active and continuous service in the fire department, the amount of. annual pension to be allowed shall be one-half the annual compensation allowed such officers or member as salary at the date of his retirement from the service, or such less sum in proportion to the number of officers and inembers so retired as the condition of the fund will warrant." Section 790 of the Charter (Laws 1901, p. 331, c. 406).
The fire commissioner claims he had a perfect right to reduce the amount payable to the plaintiff. He also claims that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the commissioner was not warranted in paying him the less amount. The real question here then is, on whom is the burden of proof? The defendant claims that the presumption is in his favor; that his acts as an official were correctly and legally done. I believe that the qualifying clause in this -statute is in the nature of a proviso and that the principles discussed in Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 and Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 67, 45 N. E. 398, do apply, and that the burden is not upon plaintiff to- negative the proviso clause of the statute; that he properly pleaded that portion of the clause under which he claims to maintain his contention; and that, if the commissioner is acting under the proviso, the burden is upon him to allege and prove that the funds were insufficient to meet the demands upon them. Again, the facts were "peculiarly witliin the knowledge of defendant," and the burden was therefore upon him. Greenleaf on Evidence (15th Ed.), vol. 1, §79..
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
JENKS and MILLER, JJ., concur.