Langdon v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.

New York Court of Appeals

Langdon v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.

92 N.Y. 427, 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 163

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 92 N.Y. 427 (Langdon v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langdon v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y., 92 N.Y. 427, 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 163 (N.Y. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Earl, J.

The plaintiff was a regular clerk in the finance department of the city of Hew York, and was removed because his services were not needed. There was no contract, express or implied, to retain him in the service of the department for any definite time. He held his place subject to the power of the comptroller to remove him at any time under the provisions of the city charter. (Laws of 1873, chap. 335, § 28.) That power was unlimited, except that it was provided that “ no regular clerk or head of bureau shall be removed until he has been informed of the cause of the proposed removal, and has been allowed an opportunity of making an explanation.” That limitation does not.apply to a ease like this. Its purpose was fully explained in the, cases of People, ex rel. Munday, v. Fire Commissioners (72 N. Y. 445), and Phillips v. Mayor, etc. (88 id. 245). In the latter case it was held not to apply to á case where a regular clerk was discharged, not to make way for another,'but because there was no further need of his services, or because there were no funds provided for his payment. Here the business of the department had so diminished that the plaintiff’s services were not needed. For such cause the comptroller had the absolute power of removal, without any previous trial, hearing or notice, and hence the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Earl, J.

The plaintiff was a regular clerk in the finance department of the city of Hew York, and was removed because his services were not needed. There was no contract, express or implied, to retain him in the service of the department for any definite time. He held his place subject to the power of the comptroller to remove him at any time under the provisions of the city charter. (Laws of 1873, chap. 335, § 28.) That power was unlimited, except that it was provided that “ no regular clerk or head of bureau shall be removed until he has been informed of the cause of the proposed removal, and has been allowed an opportunity of making an explanation.” That limitation does not.apply to a ease like this. Its purpose was fully explained in the, cases of People, ex rel. Munday, v. Fire Commissioners (72 N. Y. 445), and Phillips v. Mayor, etc. (88 id. 245). In the latter case it was held not to apply to á case where a regular clerk was discharged, not to make way for another,'but because there was no further need of his services, or because there were no funds provided for his payment. Here the business of the department had so diminished that the plaintiff’s services were not needed. For such cause the comptroller had the absolute power of removal, without any previous trial, hearing or notice, and hence the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y. 427, 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langdon-v-mayor-etc-of-city-of-ny-ny-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack