People ex rel. Hart v. La Grange

7 A.D. 311, 40 N.Y.S. 1026, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 413
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 7 A.D. 311 (People ex rel. Hart v. La Grange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Hart v. La Grange, 7 A.D. 311, 40 N.Y.S. 1026, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Opinion

Patterson, J.:

There was abundant evidence produced in the court below to require the issuance of the peremptory writ of mandamus in this matter. The only question before the court was whether the action of the commissioners of the fire department in discharging the relator was a legitimate exercise of the power they possessed to abolish the office he held and thereby dispense with his services, or was a mere pretext to remove him in order that they might put some- one in his place. It is manifest that the relator was discharged on the mere pretense that his office was to be abolished, and a man named IVIcLewee was immediately assigned to do the same work that the relator had done. This man IVIcLewee had been an employee of the fire department, filling a place which had been abolished by a resolution of the board, which resolution [312]*312remained unrescinded at the time this relator, was removed from his position, and it is painfully apparent that the relator was thrust-'aside simply for the purpose of retaining McLewee in the employment and under the pay of the hoard, although the place he had filled had been abolished. Not only was the alleged reason for the - discharge of the relator and the retention of McLewee (who was virtually a discharged employee) a mere sham, but McLewee was ineligible to fill the place even had the relator’s office been abolished, for he had not passed the civil service examination required bylaw, and in no sense could McLewee he regarded as a transferee from one position to another.

The courts have the right to inquire into the good faith of" the action of the commissioners in a case of this kind, and the order. appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Rosario Rodríguez v. Cuevas Bustamante
60 P.R. 457 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1942)
State ex rel. Gilmur v. City of Seattle
145 P. 61 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
People ex rel. Lazarus v. Coleman
99 A.D. 88 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
People ex rel. Boyd v. Hertle
46 A.D. 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Van Valkenburgh v. Mayor of New York
49 A.D. 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
People ex rel. Boyd v. Hertle
28 Misc. 37 (New York Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 A.D. 311, 40 N.Y.S. 1026, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-hart-v-la-grange-nyappdiv-1896.