In re Skinkle

Decision Date16 October 1928
Citation249 N.Y. 172,163 N.E. 297
PartiesIn re SKINKLE.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

In the matter of charges against George S. Skinkle, a patrolman connected with the Police Department of the City of Watervliet. From an order of the Appellate Division (223 App. Div. 468, 228 N. Y. S. 585) annulling a determination of the Police Commissioner, and reinstating petitioner as patrolman, the Commissioner appeals.

Reversed, and proceeding dismissed.

See, also, 221 App. Div. 301, 223 N. Y. S. 146.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

Joseph D. Foley, Corp. Counsel, of Watervliet, for appellant.

Kenneth S. MacAffer, of Albany, for respondent.

CRANE, J.

Chapter 462 of the Laws of 1918, being the charter of the city of Watervliet, provides for the removal or discipline of an officer by the commissioner of public safety upon written charges after a hearing. Section 148 provides for a review of the commissioner's determination in the following manner:

‘In case any such officer or member is aggrieved by the determination of the commissioner on any trial of charges as specified in the preceding section, on jurisdictional grounds, he may, within thirty days after the rendering of such determination, take an appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court, at any special term thereof, held within the judicial district in which the city is situated. Upon such appeal the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.’

George S. Skinkle was dismissed from the police force by the commissioner after a hearing. He appealed to the Special Term, which reviewed the merits of his case and reinstated him. Matter of Skinkle, 130 Misc. Rep. 8, 223 N. Y. S. 553. On appeal, the order of the Special Term was reversed on the ground that the Special Term had no power to review the case on the merits, but could only pass upon jurisdictional questions. The matter was remitted to the Special Term for a hearing upon these grounds. Matter of Skinkle, 221 App. Div. 682, 225 N. Y. S. 80. The Special Term upon rehearing dismissed Skinkle's appeal, as there was no jurisdictional error committed by the commissioner.

The police officer had also obtained an order of certiorari to review the determination of the commissioner on the facts. The Appellate Division (223 App. Div. 468, 228 N. Y. S. 585) concluded that the determination of the commissioner of public safety should be annulled, dismissed the charges, and restored the relator to his position as an officer of the police force of the city of Watervliet.

It is this determination of the Appellate Division which has been appealed to this court.

The appointment and removal of police officers are within legislative control, subject to article 5, § 6, of the Constitution. The Legislature could have provided that the decisionof the commissioner of public safety would be final and conclusive, not subject to review by any court. People ex rel. Miller v. Peck, 73 App. Div. 89, 76 N. Y. S. 328.

In the Second-Class Cities Law, art. 9 (Consol. Laws, c. 53), we find in section 138, relating to the department of public safety, that an aggrieved officer may appeal from the determination...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Lerner v. Casey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Junio 1956
    ...the civil service of the state or any city or any civil division.' See Ryan v. Hand, 258 App.Div. 912, 16 N.Y.S.2d 365; Matter of Skinkle, 249 N.Y. 172, 163 N.E. 297; Gray v. Spears, 206 Misc. 1020, 136 N.Y.S.2d 172. Section 22 must be held to be inapplicable here. Had appellant availed him......
  • Schrader v. Civil Service Com'r of Monroe County
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 Julio 1976
    ...statutory authority or preclude declaratory judgment or equitable actions based primarily on constitutional rights (see Matter of Skinkle, 249 N.Y. 172, 163 N.E. 297; Matter of Mancuso v. Mauriello, 41 Misc.2d 385, 246 N.Y.S.2d 122; cf. Sullivan v. Department of Social Servs. of City of N.Y......
  • Lo Bello v. McLaughlin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 Julio 1972
    ...was neither raised nor considered and the files of this court reveal that, although not cited, the decision was based on Matter of Skinkle, 249 N.Y. 172, 163 N.E. 297, in which the Court of Appeals held that section 138 of the Second Class Cities Law (which is virtually identical with secti......
  • Semerad v. City of Schenectady
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 5 Enero 1967
    ...thus if the factual decisions are supported by any evidence they must be sustained (Second Class Cities Law, § 138; e.g., Matter of Skinkle, 249 N.Y. 172, 163 N.E. 297; Matter of Quay v. Wege, 158 App.Div. 120, 142 N.Y.S. 618). We find that petitioner could clearly have been found to have v......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT