Jacobus v. Van Wyck

24 Misc. 329, 53 N.Y.S. 71
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1898
StatusPublished

This text of 24 Misc. 329 (Jacobus v. Van Wyck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jacobus v. Van Wyck, 24 Misc. 329, 53 N.Y.S. 71 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Opinion

Chase, J.

The petitioner, John W. Jacobus, is a citizen of the United States, a resident of the city of Hew York, and a veteran of the army of the United States of America. He has never served in the Confederate army or navy. On the 20th of Hovember, 1895, he was duly appointed a member of: the board of assessors of the corporation known as the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of Hew York, by the commissioners of taxes and assessments of said city, acting under section 865 of chapter 410 of t-he Laws of .1882, and served as a member of said board, and faithfully performed his duties as such member until January ' 1, 1898. Section 865 of said act, being the act known as the Consolidation Act, provides as follows.:, “ The commissioners of taxes and assessments shall, from time to time, appoint four skillful and competent disinterested persons, citizens of the United States and residents, of the city of Hew York, who. shall constitute a. hoard to be known as the board of- assessors * * *.” Chapter 821 of the Laws of 1896 provides, .among other things, as follows: “* * * And no person holding a position by appointment or employment in the state of Hew York :or of the several cities, counties, towns or villages thereof and receiving a salary or per diem' pay from the state or from any of the several cities, counties, towns or villages thereof, who is an honorably discharged soldier, sailor or marine, having served as such in the Union army during the war of the rebellion and who shall not have served in the Confederate army or navy, shall be removed from such position or employment, except for incompeteney or misconduct shown, after a hearing upon due notice, upon the charge made * *.

But the provisions of this act, shall not he construed to apply to the position of private secretary or deputy of an official or department or to any other person holding a strictly confidential position.” By chapter 378 of the Laws of 1897 all the municipal .and public corporations and parts .of municipal and public corporations, including cities, etc., but not including counties within certain particularly described territory, were annexed to, united and consolidated with1 the municipal corporation known as the mayor, aider-men and commonalty of the city of Hew York, to be thereafter called “ The City of Hew York.” This act is known as the Greater Hew York charter, and section 127 thereof is as follows.: “All veterans either of the army or navy or the volunteer fire departments, now in the service of either of the municipal and public corpora-, [331]*331tions hereby consolidated, who are now entitled by law to serve during good behavior, or who can not under existing law be removed except for cause,. shall be retained in like positions and under the same conditions by the corporation constituted by this act, to serve under such titles and. in such way as the head of the appropriate department or the mayor may direct.” - '

Section 943 of this act provides: “ The mayor shall appoint five persons, who shall constitute the board of assesors * * *.”

The board of assessors, prior to the 1st day of January, 1898, under the Consolidation Act, was composed of four persons, viz.: Thomas J. Rush, Patrick M. Haverty, Edward McOue, and the petitioner John W. Jacobus. The Greater Hew- York charter went into effect January 1, 1898, and the mayor of the Greater Hew York appointed said Edward McOue, and Patrick M. Haverty, together with Edward E. Hill, Thomas A. Wilson, and John Del-more, assessors. The petitioner informed the mayor that he was a veteran of the. army and claimed that he was retained by the city o-f Hew York in the position of member of the board of assessors, provided for in section 943 of the Greater Hew York charter, and offered to serve in such position, and requested the mayor to assign him to such position; but the mayor refused and neglected to assign the petitioner to serve in such or any position whatever. The position of assessor under, the Consolidation Act, and that of assessor- under the present charter, have never been among those included in the civil service rules, and the appointments have been made without competitive examination. It is contended by the corporation counsel that the petitioner .is not included within section 121 of the Greater Hew York charter for the reason that such section applies only to such veterans as are entitled to preference under the civil service rules, and has no application to positions not obtained by-competitive examination. By reference to the Veterans Act, it will.be found that they apply, first, to veterans who are seeking positions in the civil service-; second, to veterans'after they have obtained positions in the civil service. Chapter 821 of the Laws of 1896 gives to veterans a preference for appointment as therein'provided, and also provides that “Ho person holding a position by appointment or employment” shall be removed except for incompetence or misconduct shown áfter á hearing upon due notice of the charge made. The Court of Appeals, in the case of People ex rel. Haverty v. Barker, in 149 N. Y. 607; [332]*3321 App. Div. 532, recognized Patrick M. Haverty, then assessor in Rew York under the Consolidation Act, as entitled to hold his-' position, unless removed for cause,' as provided hy the Vetérans Act. It is true that the question whether an assessor, under the Oonsoli-dation Act, was protected frbm, removal by reason of being a veteran was not directly up for consideration in that case, yet the-commissioners of taxes and assessments assumed that the relator in that proceeding was so protected and proceeded under the Veterans Act to remove him for alleged cause. The determination of ¡the commissioners was reviewed by certiorari. ■ There is not a word in the report in that case, -by suggestion or otherwise, dissenting from the position ¡assumed by everyone connected with the' case, that the Veterans Act applied to the positiqn of assessor of the city of Rew York, and that an assessor did not come within the exceptions in such acts specified. The Haverty case is a -practical construction of the Veterans Act. This authority, in which I ac-/ quiesce, brings me to the conclusion that the petitioner herein was entitled, under the Consolidation Act, to serve, during good behavior and that he could not have been removed except for cause at the time the Greater Rew York charter went into effect. He was, therefore, entitled to be retained in a like position by the head-of the appropriate department or the mayor under the new charter, if there was a like position under such new charter to which he-could be assigned. Is the position of an assessor under the Greater Rew York charter a like position to that of assessor under the Consolidation Act? The assessor under the Consolidation Act and. the' assessor under the Greater Rew York charter have the same; name. The salary is the same. Section 945 of the Greater Rew York charter confers upon the new board of assessors “ as to the whole territory embraced in the city of Rew. York, each and -every power and authority conferred upon and exercised by the board of assessors * * * of the corporation heretofore known as the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of Rew York.” The duties of the new board, therefore, áre the same as the duties of the old board, except that their jurisdiction is somewhat extended and the territory now includes all of the municipalities making up the Greater Rew York. They are now appointed by the mayor instead of being appointed by the commissioners of taxes' and assessments as heretofore. In all essential particulars the position of an assessor under the present charter is the same as the position of an assessor under the Consolidation Act.

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

Related

People ex rel. Haverty v. Barker
1 A.D. 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Mitchell v. Rouse
19 A.D. 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Misc. 329, 53 N.Y.S. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobus-v-van-wyck-nysupct-1898.