People ex rel. McCullough v. Cram
Opinion of the Court
—This matter comes before us on a writ of certiorari, duly issued, and we are asked to review the determination of the respondents, composing the board of dock comm is
“ When the duration of any office is not provided by the constitution, it may be declared by law, and if not so declared, such office shall be held during the pleasure of the authority, making the appointment.” Article 10; § 3 ; People ex rel. Cline v. Robb, 126 N. Y. 180;. 37 St. Rep. 8_
_ _ Section 718 of the consolidation act provides, in part, as follows:
“ The board of dock commissioners shall appoint a secretary and such subordinate officers, clerks, and agents, as shall be necessary to assise said board in the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers.”
By section 48 of the consolidation act the heads of all departments have the power of appointing and removing at pleasure all chiefs of bureaus and all clerks in their respective departments, unless such officers are protected from removal at pleasure by the following limiting clause, contained in said section, to wit:
“But no regular clerk or head of bureau shall be removed until he has been informed of the cause of the proposed removal, and has been allowed an opportunity of making an explanation!”
The relator is not a head of a bureau, nor is he a regular clerk. The statute, by distinguishing between these two classes of officials and other clerks, officers, employes, and subordinates, necessarily leaves those not thus named and expressly excepted from the operation of the general powers subject to removal at the pleasure of the board. This follows from the familiar rule of interpretation of the statute, “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” The power to remove at pleasure is conferred in general terms, and but two classes of all the officers and employes are excepted from its op
The relator has not asserted the rights accorded under the veteran laws, and, therefore, does not come within their provisions. In re Shay, 39 St. Rep. 856 ; People ex rel. Murphy v. Howell, 37 St. Rep. 181 ; People ex rel. Sullivan v. Waring, infra.
The writ of certiorari should be quashed, and the proceedings-dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.