Phillips v. . Mayor, Etc., City of New York
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Hartman v. City of Providence (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1986)
- Beers v. Nyquist (New York Supreme Court 1972)
- Funston v. District School Board, Etc. (Or. 1929)
- People ex rel. Gutheil v. Woodbury (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1905)
- People ex rel. McCanna v. Board of Commissioners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
- Gore v. Mayor of New York (Superior Court of New York 1893)
- State Ex Rel. Hammond v. Maxfield (Utah 1942)
- Ellis v. Allen (Ark. 1941)
- Fiveash v. Holderness (Ark. 1935)
- Lyon v. Civil Service Commission (Iowa 1927)
- State Ex Rel. Abel v. City of Seattle (Wash. 1926)
- Hatfield v. County Court of Mingo County (W. Va. 1917)
- City of Shawnee v. Hewett (Okla. 1913)
- State v. City of Seattle (Wash. 1913)
- Garvey v. City of Lowell (Mass. 1908)
- Fitzsimmons v. O'Neill (Ill. 1905)
- City of Chicago v. People ex rel. Byrne (Ill. App. Ct. 1904)
- O'Neill v. Fitzsimmons (Ill. App. Ct. 1904)
- People ex rel. Levenson v. Wells (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- People ex rel. Levenson v. Wells (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Lazenby v. Board of Police (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- In re Lazenby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- Vincent v. Cram (New York Supreme Court 1899)
- Porter v. Howland (New York Supreme Court 1898)
- Hawkins v. Roberts & Son (Ala. 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff was not an officer specially provided for in- the city charter; that is, the fire commissioners were not required to appoint or keep a clerk specially charged with the duties which the plaintiff performed. Unless prohibited by the provision in the charter which we will quote, the fire commissioners could at any time discharge the plaintiff and abolish or dispense with the office or position which he filled. The provision referred to is found in section 28 of chapter 335 of the Laws of 1873, and is as follows : “ No regular clerk or head of a 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'; and in every case of a re *247 moval, the true grounds thereof shall be forthwith entered upon the records of the department or board. In case of removal, a statement showing the reason therefor shall be filed in the department.”
The object of this provision was to. prevent removal except for cause, and then only after a hearing or an opportunity for a hearing. The purpose of a hearing was to enable the clerk or officer proceeded against to satisfy the body or officer having the power of removal that he should be retained. The provision has no application to a case like this. This is not, properly speaking, a case of removal within the meaning of the statute. Here the office or clerkship was abrogated, and there was no more need of plaintiff’s services. He could not claim that the office or clerkship should be retained for his benefit, and the' fire commissioners were not obliged to consult him before abrogating it. And further, the statute does not apply to a case like this where the officer is removed, not to make way for another, but because his services are no longer needed, or because there are no funds provided for his payment. The plain purpose of the statute does not reach such a case.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.