In re Gaffney — 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 503

Majority

p. 503

In the Matter of the Application of Patrick H. Gaffney, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus Against Frank Squier, as Commissioner of the Department of Parks in the City of Brooklyn, Respondent.

Headnote

Honorably discharged soldier — reinstatement as a laborer in the park department of the city of Brooklyn — denied because of his laches.

Although an honorably discharged Union soldier be wrongfully discharged by the commissioner of parks in the city of Brooklyn, if he neglects to make an appli- ■ cation for reinstatement until two years and nine months after the time of his discharge, his laches prevents his reinstatement.

Appeal by the relator, Patrick H. Gaffney, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 26th day of November, 1894, denying the relator’s motion for a writ of mandamus.

Patrick II. Gaffney applied for a writ of mandamus commanding Frank Squier, as commissioner of the department of parks in the city of Brooklyn, to restore him to his employment as a laborer employed in the said park department. The petition alleged that the relator was an honorably discharged Union soldier, and that he was wrongfully discharged from his employmant as a laborer in the park department of the city of Brooklyn.

Sidney Williams and G. B. Van Wart, for the relator, appellant.

Albert G. McDonald and Howard 0. Wood, for the respondent.

The relator herein slept upon his right too long to be entitled to’ the relief he seeks. This application is made two years and nine' months after the alleged time of discharge. Relator must bear the result of his own carelessness. His laohes prevents his reinstatement. (Shay v. Trustees Brooklyn Bridge, 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 856 .) The Special Term of this court, affirmed by the General Term, held that the laohes of one year and six months rendered reinstatement

p. 504

impossible. (See, also, Matter of Wortman, 22 Abb. N. C. 143 ; People ex rel. Hayden v. City Court of Brooklyn, July 31, 1890.) I recommend affirmance.

Brown, R. J., and Dyicmmn, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.