Hyperlawhypertext legal database People ex rel. Carrigan v. Board of Police 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 900

← Cases

People ex rel. Carrigan v. Board of Police

31 N.Y. St. Rep. 900 Court N.Y. Decision date 1890-06-24 English

Contents

Majority

p. 900
The People ex rel. George E. Carrigan, Resp’t, v. The Board of Police of Yonkers, App’lt.[1]
(Court of Appeals,
Filed June 24, 1890.)

Headnote

Municipal corporations—Police—Removal.
Whether the reason for the absence of a police officer from duty, or the nature of the malady which incapacitated him physically, were such as to excuse him from severe punishment, is a matter for the determination of the police commissioners, and where they find him guilty after a trial upon the charges and dismiss him from the force upon undisputed evidence, there is no case for interference by thé appellate court with the conclusions of the commissioners.
Appeal from judgment of the supreme court, general term, second department, reversing proceedings of the police board of Yonkers removing relator on charges of being absent from roll call without leave; and of seeking to deceive and mislead the police surgeon in relation to his illness.
Joseph F. Daly, for app’lt; JohnF. Brennan, for resp’t.

The respondent was charged with the commission of two violations of the police rules. One was his absence from roll call without leave, and the other was for being unable to perform his duties as patrolman on account of a vile disease. To both of these he pleaded guilty, and there was evidence which tended to establish the facts as to each charge. Whether the reason for his absence, or the nature of the malady which incapacitated him physically, were such as to excuse him from severe punishment was a matter for the determination of the police commissioners. They found him guilty, after a trial upon the charges, and dismissed him from the police force. The evidence establishing the offense being undisputed, no case was made for an interference by the appellate court with the conclusions of the commissioners.

It was error, therefore, to reverse their determination, and the order of the general term should be reversed and the judgment of the police commissioners affirmed.

All concur, except Andrews and O’Brien, JJ., absent.