Case Name: James Martin, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-04
Citations: 34 Misc. 582
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Martin, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 582–584

Head Matter:
James Martin, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,
April, 1901.)
Hew York— Pay, after consolidation, of police officer transferred from another force — L. 1897, ch. 378, § 299.
It is intended by the charter of the city of New York (L. 1897, ch. 378, § 299), that the salaries therein provided to be paid officers of the city police force shall not be paid to officers of other forces, transferred upon consolidation and then receiving relatively lower compensation, until the probationary period of augmentation mentioned in said section 299 has passed; and, therefore, a doorman of the former park police of said city, adjudged upon a writ of mandamus to be entitled to his - position and salary, and who before con solidation received two dollars per day, is not entitled to recover at the rate of one thousand dollars for the first year after consolidation, but only at the rate of two dollars per day plus the first annual addition of the three prescribed by said section 299.
Action to recover salary as a doorman of the police force of the police department of the city of New York.
Motion to reduce verdict which was directed by the court in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley, of counsel), for motion.
Louis J. Grant, for plaintiff, opposed.

Opinion:
Giegerich, J.
It having been adjudged by the writ of mandamus that the plaintiff is entitled to the position of doorman and to the salary thereof (McEvoy v. City of New York, 56 App. Div. 222, 224), the question arises what compensation he is entitled to. Prior to the 1st day of January, 1898, the plaintiff was appointed a doorman by the commissioners of public parks under power and authority vested in them to appoint and maintain a park police force, which, on the day last mentioned, by virtue of provisions of the Greater New York charter, was merged in and became part of the police force of the city of New York. When such consolidation took place plaintiff was receiving compensation at the rate of $2 per day. Section 299 of the Greater New York charter provides that the annual salary of a doorman shall be $1,000. The plaintiff contends that he became entitled to compensation at that rate immediately upon the new charter taking effect, while the defendant urges that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover more than $2 a day, or, if ultimately entitled to recover at the rate of $1,000 per year, that he is, at áll events, for the first year entitled to only one-third of such increase, pursuant to the last subdivision of section 299, which provides that " salaries of all officers in the forces so transferred other than officers of the New York police prior to January 1, 1898, shall be equalized on the same basis. If the difference in pay is not more than $50 the pay shall be equalized at once. If the difference is more than $50 the pay shall be made uniform within three years by equal annual additions." Taking section 299 in its en tirety, and giving effect to all its provisions, it is clear that the Legislature intended that the .maximum salaries therein provided to be paid to various " officers " of the police force, including doormen, should not be paid to officers transferred from forces other than the New York police force, and whose compensation was relatively lower, until the probationary period of augmentation has passed. Donnelly v. City of New York, 53 App. Div. 447; affd., 166 N. Y. 592. It results from these views that the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation only at the rate of $2 per day, together with the first annual addition as prescribed by section 299 of the charter, instead of the maximum rate of $1;000 per year. The judgment will, therefore, be reduced accordingly and to such sum as may be found to be due upon the settlement of the order, of which two days' notice shall be given.
Ordered accordingly.