People ex rel. Higgins v. Grant

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Higgins v. Grant

13 N.Y.S. 676, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 629, 59 Hun 625, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1632

DecidedMarch 13, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 676 (People ex rel. Higgins v. Grant) 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

People ex rel. Higgins v. Grant, 13 N.Y.S. 676, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 629, 59 Hun 625, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1632 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Brunt, P. J.

The case of People v. MacLean, 11 N. Y. Supp. 559, determines most of the questions involved in this proceeding against the contention of the relator; it is not necessary to rediscuss questions which are there settled. It is claimed, however, that because of rule 40 of the rules of the civil service, which is to the effect that no one dismissed from service for misconduct shall be eligible to appointment in any capacity in any department of the municipal,service within three years, the relator is entitled to greater rights than would have been the case had he not incurred the penalty prescribed by this rule by being removed. We do not see .how it is possible for the rules of the civil service to add to or detract from the statute, which would be the effect were a different construction given to the statute because of the rule than would obtain had no such rule been adopted. The language of the statute is reasonably clear, and has been interpreted, as has been already said, contrary to the view of the relator; and. while the results of a removal should make the heads of departments careful in the imposition of this penalty, yet when they come within the statute this court cannot .interfere with the result. We think, therefore, the writ should be dismissed, without a costs. All concur.

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

Van Brunt, P. J.

The case of People v. MacLean, 11 N. Y. Supp. 559, determines most of the questions involved in this proceeding against the contention of the relator; it is not necessary to rediscuss questions which are there settled. It is claimed, however, that because of rule 40 of the rules of the civil service, which is to the effect that no one dismissed from service for misconduct shall be eligible to appointment in any capacity in any department of the municipal,service within three years, the relator is entitled to greater rights than would have been the case had he not incurred the penalty prescribed by this rule by being removed. We do not see .how it is possible for the rules of the civil service to add to or detract from the statute, which would be the effect were a different construction given to the statute because of the rule than would obtain had no such rule been adopted. The language of the statute is reasonably clear, and has been interpreted, as has been already said, contrary to the view of the relator; and. while the results of a removal should make the heads of departments careful in the imposition of this penalty, yet when they come within the statute this court cannot .interfere with the result. We think, therefore, the writ should be dismissed, without a costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 676, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 629, 59 Hun 625, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-higgins-v-grant-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack