Hammond v. Ricker

66 Misc. 526
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1919·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Brown, J.

By act of the defendants, the offices known as deputy assistant city attorney, managing clerk, clerk, registrar and detective connected with the office of corporation counsel of the city of Buffalo, were, in ¡February, 1909, classified under the Civil Service Law as being in the [527] competitive class; and such classification became effective April 15, 1909, by the approval of the State Civil Service Commission. By prior action, the position of stenographer in such office has been classified as being in the competitive class.

By this motion, the corporation counsel seeks a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the defendants to reclassify these positions and place them in the exempt class.

It is made the duty of the defendants as the Municipal Civil Service Commission to classify all appointive offices and positions in the classified service of the city of Buffalo in four classes, to be designated as the exempt class, the competitive class, the non-competitive class and the labor class. In making such classifications of such positions in the office of corporation counsel, the defendants are endowed with complete ministerial, executive .and administrative powers, without any restriction except that they are required to place in the exempt class the deputies of the corporation counsel authorized by law to act generally for and in place of their principal; and they may include in the exempt class all other subordinate offices for the filling of'which competitive examination may be found to be not practicable.

Under the requirement of placing in the exempt class the deputies in the office of corporation counsel, authorikbd by law to act generally for and in place of the corporation counsel, the positions of city attorney and assistant city attorney (2) have heretofore been classified in the exempt class. It is the contention of the corporation counsel that the position of deputy assistant city attorney (2) and managing clerk should be in the exempt class, for the reason that these officers are authorized by law to act generally for and in place of the corporation counsel; it is also the contention of the corporation counsel that the position of deputy assistant city attorney, managing clerk, clerk, registrar and detective, and one stenographer are confidential positions, of such a nature that the merit and fitness of applicants therefor cannot with practicability be ascertained by a competitive examination.

[528] While it is provided hy law that the positions of deputy assistant city attorney and managing clerk be filled by attorneys and counselors-at-law, no statute has been cited wherein these officers are authorized to act generally for and in place of the corporation counsel. The only officer of the corporation counsel’s staff that appears to be authorized by law to act generally for and in place of the corporation counsel is the city attorney, who is directed by section 172 of the charter to perform the duties of the office of corporation counsel in the absence or inability of that officer to act. The duties of deputy assistant city attorney seem to be limited to those services which the corporation counsel may assign to him, and such services shall be performed under the direction of the corporation counsel; the managing clerk is required, under the direction of the corporation counsel, to have charge of beeping the records required to be kept and to perform such other duties as the corporation counsel may assign him. Many facts appear in the affidavits presented upon this application establishing that, in some instances, these officers have acted for and in place of the corporation counsel; but it cannot be found from all the evidence presented that either of the two deputy assistant city attorneys or the managing' clerk is a deputy of the corporation counsel, authorized by law to act generally for and in place of that officer. ;

The Municipal Civil Service 'Commission have, in the exercise of their discretion, decided that the positions of deputy assistant city .attorney, managing clerk, clerk, registrar and detective, in the office of the corporation counsel, are not of such a confidential character that the merit and fitness of an applicant cannot be determined by a competitive examination. The authority of the court to review that decision upon this application depends solely upon the question "whether that conclusion is illegal. If the commission, in making that decision, abused the discretion given it; if it acted without warrant of law; if its decision violates the» law; if to say that the merit and fitness of an applicant for one of those positions can be ascertained by a competitive [529] examination is palpably illegal; if, as a matter of law, such positions are in the exempt class, then the decision of the commission can be corrected and a direction given to take them out of the competitive class and place them in the exempt class. But, where the position is one as to the proper method of filling which there is a fair and reasonable ground for difference of opinion among intelligent and conscientious officials, the action of the commission should stand, even though the court may differ from the commission as to the wisdom of the classification. People v. McWilliams, 185 N. Y., 99.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hammond v. Ricker, 66 Misc. 526 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1919).

66 Misc. 526 (Hammond v. Ricker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hammond v. Ricker
140 A.D. 19 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)