Majority
Pursuant to section 31 of the Election Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 17) and to a resolution of the County Committee of the Democratic Party for the County of Essex, the chairman of that committee recommended James M. Lonergan to the Board of Supervisors of the county for appointment as a Commissioner of Elections in place of Richard F. Hayes whose term of office was about to expire. A committee of the Board made the following report in respect of Mr. Lonergan’s qualifications: “ It is the unanimous opinion of this committee that he will fulfill the duties of this office with credit to the office and the county and we earnestly urge and recommend his immediate appointment.” Nevertheless a motion that the Board appoint Mr. Longer an an Election Commissioner was lost by a vote of eleven to five. The chairman of the County Committee of the Democratic Party then brought this proceeding to compel the Board to appoint Mr, Lonergan to the office.
The statute gave to that committee merely the right to “ make and file * * * with the board of supervisors of such county a certificate * * * which * * * shall certify the name of a person who is *■' * * a resident and qualified voter of the county, and who is recommended as a fit and proper person to be appointed a commissioner of elections.” The certification of the name of Mr. Lonergan thereunder was thus a nomination for the office in question but nothing more. The refusal of the Board to follow this recommendation was competent governmental action which did not affect any private right. Courts are not at liberty to sit in judgment upon an imputation that improper motives may have influenced an exercise of such a discretionary sovereign power (See the cases cited in Matter of City of New York [Ely Avenue], 217 N. Y. 45 , 59. Cf. Weston v. City of Syracuse, 158 N. Y. 274 .) Under the circumstances, we have no function but to point out the command of the Constitution of the State that Boards of Supervisors are to secure bi-partisan Commissions of Elections in the manner prescribed by the statute. (Const, art. II, § 8. See Matter of Kane v. Gaynor, 144 App. Div. 196 , at pp. 206, 207; 202 N. Y. 615 .)
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Cases cited
- People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health 189 N. Y. 187 p. 156
- People ex rel. Empire City Trotting Club v. State Racing Commission 190 N. Y. 31 p. 156
- Larkin Co. v. Schwab 242 N. Y. 330 p. 156
- Schwab v. McElligott 282 N. Y. 182 p. 156
- Kane v. Gaynor 202 N. Y. 615 p. 156, p. 157
- People ex rel. Savage v. Board of Health 33 Barb. 344 p. 156
- People ex rel. Schuylerville & Upper Hudson Railroad v. Betts 55 N. Y. 600 p. 156
- People ex rel. Corwin v. Walter 68 N. Y. 403 p. 156
- People ex rel. Republican & Journal Co. v. Wiggins 199 N. Y. 382 p. 156
- People ex rel. Hayes v. Waldo 212 N. Y. 156 p. 156
- People ex rel. Second Avenue Railroad v. Board of Commissioners of the Department of Public Parks 97 N. Y. 37 p. 156
- Long Island Railroad v. Hylan 240 N. Y. 199 p. 156
- In re Leverant 110 App. Div. 371 p. 156
- In re the Accounting of Harden 221 N. Y. 643 p. 156
- In re the City of New York 217 N. Y. 45 at 59 p. 157
- Weston v. City of Syracuse 158 N. Y. 274 p. 157