People Ex Rel. Waldman v. Board of Police Commissioners

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Waldman v. Board of Police Commissioners

82 N.Y. 506, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 394

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 N.Y. 506 (People Ex Rel. Waldman v. Board of Police Commissioners) 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

People Ex Rel. Waldman v. Board of Police Commissioners, 82 N.Y. 506, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 394 (N.Y. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

*508 Danforth, J.

The order made by the Special Term was that the writ be quashed, and it was intimated upon the argument that under the practice of this court in such cases the appeal must be dismissed, but at request of the appellant’s counsel the case was held, to enable him to hand up points and authorities to the contrary. We are still of the opinion that this trouble might have been spared. It had been frequently decided that the Supreme Court has a discretionary power to grant or withhold a common-law certiorari. (In re Mount Morris Square, 2 Hill, 28; People ex rel. Vanderbilt v. Stilwell, 19 N. Y. 531; People ex rel. Paris v. Hill, 53 id. 547; People ex rel. Hudson v. Board of Fire Commissioners 77 id. 605.) In these (and many other cases to the same effect might be cited) it was held that unreasonable delay in applying for the writ might be a ground for refusing it, and for quashing it even after a hearing on a return thereto. We cannot distinguish this case from those cited.

The relator was removed from office April 1, 1876. The writ of certiora/ri was applied for March 1, 1878. This delay might well be considered unreasonable, and as amounting to acquiescence in the action of the department. Such a question was not presented in The People ex rel. The Citizens' Gas Co. v. The Board of Assessors (39 N. Y. 81); the facts in that case are palpably unlike those now before us, and the learned judge who there delivered the opinion seems to have regarded it as an exception to the general rule. In Stilwell's Case (19 N. Y. 531), a distinction' is suggested upon which an appeal might lie, but it does not avail the appellant, for in the case before us the Supreme Court neither annulled nor affirmed the proceedings complained of; nor does the language of the New Code, to which we are referred (§190, subds. 2 and .3), differ in meaning from that of the old (§ 11), which was in force when the cases above referred to were decided.

We think the appeal should be dismissed.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

*508 Danforth, J.

The order made by the Special Term was that the writ be quashed, and it was intimated upon the argument that under the practice of this court in such cases the appeal must be dismissed, but at request of the appellant’s counsel the case was held, to enable him to hand up points and authorities to the contrary. We are still of the opinion that this trouble might have been spared. It had been frequently decided that the Supreme Court has a discretionary power to grant or withhold a common-law certiorari. (In re Mount Morris Square, 2 Hill, 28; People ex rel. Vanderbilt v. Stilwell, 19 N. Y. 531; People ex rel. Paris v. Hill, 53 id. 547; People ex rel. Hudson v. Board of Fire Commissioners 77 id. 605.) In these (and many other cases to the same effect might be cited) it was held that unreasonable delay in applying for the writ might be a ground for refusing it, and for quashing it even after a hearing on a return thereto. We cannot distinguish this case from those cited.

The relator was removed from office April 1, 1876. The writ of certiora/ri was applied for March 1, 1878. This delay might well be considered unreasonable, and as amounting to acquiescence in the action of the department. Such a question was not presented in The People ex rel. The Citizens' Gas Co. v. The Board of Assessors (39 N. Y. 81); the facts in that case are palpably unlike those now before us, and the learned judge who there delivered the opinion seems to have regarded it as an exception to the general rule. In Stilwell's Case (19 N. Y. 531), a distinction' is suggested upon which an appeal might lie, but it does not avail the appellant, for in the case before us the Supreme Court neither annulled nor affirmed the proceedings complained of; nor does the language of the New Code, to which we are referred (§190, subds. 2 and .3), differ in meaning from that of the old (§ 11), which was in force when the cases above referred to were decided.

We think the appeal should be dismissed.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.Y. 506, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-waldman-v-board-of-police-commissioners-ny-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack