Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People ex rel. George E. Carrigan, Respondent, v. The Board of Police for the City of Yonkers, Appellant, 1890 — 121 N.Y. 716 · caselaw · US
Administrative
The People ex rel. George E. Carrigan, Respondent, v. The Board of Police for the City of Yonkers, Appellant
121 N.Y. 716·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People ex rel. George E. Carrigan, Respondent, v. The Board of Police for the City of Yonkers, Appellant.
(Argued June 17, 1890;
decided June 24, 1890.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme ■Court in the second judicial department, made the second Monday of February, 1890, which reversed the determination of the appellant in removing the relator from his position as a patrolman on the police force of the city of Yonkers.
The following is the mem. of opinion :
“ 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 offence 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.”
Joseph F, Daly for appellant.
John F. Brenna/n for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for reversal.
All concur.
Order reversed.