People ex rel. Burke v. French — 23 N.Y. St. Rep. 384

Majority

p. 384

The People ex rel. John O. Burke, v. Stephen B. French et al., Commissioners, etc.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed March 29, 1889.)

Headnote

Municipal corporations—New York city—Action of commissioners of POLICE FOR DISMISSING POLICEMEN FOR NEGLECT OF DUTY CANNOT RE REVIEWED.

The police commissioners of the city of New York are the sole judges of the punishment to be inflicted upon a member of the police force for neglect of duty, and their action cannot be interfered with, on the ground that the punishment inflicted is greater that the offense warranted.

Certiorari to review the relator’s dismissal from the police force of the city of New York.

Walter L. McGorJcle, for app’lt; W. L. Turner, for resp’t.

The relator had been for a number of years a member of the police force, and in April, 1888, he was charged with neglect of duty. A copy of the charges was duly served upon him, whereupon.the relator admitted in writing the charges as specified, and waived examination thereon. Thereafter, at a regular meeting of the board, it was resolved that the charges were true, and that the relator be dismissed from the police force.

By the rules of the police department, it is provided that charges preferred against any member of the police force must be in writing, and verified by the oath of the complainant, except charges preferred by a commissioner, a superintendent, inspectors, captains, sergeants, or chief -clerk, who may make the charges in writing, without oath.

The first point raised is that the charge was made by a roundsman, and was not verified, under the rule just -stated. But this objection does not seem to be well taken, because it appears from the record that the charges_ were preferred by a captain, the roundsman simply appearing as

p. 385

complainant, and where charges are preferred by a captain, under the rules, they need not be verified by oath.

The argument addressed to us, in this case, seems to be simply an appeal to our sympathy, because of the extreme punishment which was inflicted upon the relator.

Although it may appear to us that the punishment inflicted was greater than the offense with which he was charged warranted, yet we have no power upon that ground to interfere with the action of the police commissioners. They are the sole judges of the punishment to be inflicted, and the relator having admitted to them, in writing, the fact that he was guilty of the charge as preferred, we have no alternative except to affirm the conviction.

The conviction should be affirmed, without costs.

Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.