The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Cahill v. Edward P. Barker and Others, Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Composing the Department of Taxes and Assessments

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Cahill v. Edward P. Barker and Others, Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Composing the Department of Taxes and Assessments. The assessors of the city of New York hold their offices during the pleasure of the authority appointing them. Upon tlie hearing on a return to a writ of certiorari, it appeared that Edward Cahill was appointed in 1887, under the Consolidation Act (Laws 1882, chap. 410, § 865), an assessor oí the city of New York, the duration of his term of office not being defined by his appointment, or by any statutory provision. In 1895 he was removed by the commissioners of taxes and assessments and thereupon procured a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing such action on their part. Held, that his removal was legal; That the provision of the Constitution that “When the duration of any office is not provided by this 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,” applied to his case. Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 10th day of February, 1896, directed to Edward P. Barker and others, commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York, composing the board of taxes and assessments of the department of taxes and assessments, commanding them to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of New York all and singular their acts and proceedings concerning the removal and discharge of the relator from the office of assessor of the city of New York. The relator was appointed December 8, 1887, under the Consolidation Act (Laws of 1882, chap. 410, § 865) which provided, “ The commissioners of taxes and assessments shall from time to time appoint four skillful and competent disinterested persons, citizens of the United States and residents of the city of New York, who shall constitute a board, to be known as the board of assessors, and who shall be charged with the duty of making the estimates and assessments required by law,” etc. On the 20th day of Hovember, 1895, the respondents held a meeting and passed a resolution as follows: “ Resolved, that Henry A. Grumbleton and Edward Cahill, now assessors, be and are hereby removed from their said positions as assessors, such removals to take effect immediately.” After the passage of this resolution the relator was notified by the secretary of the board that he had been so removed. He thereupon notified the board that his removal was contrary to law and protested against the same. The appointment was not in express terms for any particular time, and the respondents claim that the duration of the time of his office was not provided for by the Constitution or declared by law,, but that he held such office during the pleasure of the board, and the respondents, therefore, had the power to remove him at their pleasure and without assigning any reason therefor. Henry A. Gumbleton, for the relator. Terence Farley, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Williams, J. :] Williams, J. : Article 10, section 3, of the Constitution, as it existed prior to 1894, and as it still exists, provides: “ When the duration of any office is not provided by this 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.” The duration of this office was not provided for by the Constitution, nor was it declared by the Consolidation Act or any other act of the Legislature. The relator was not within any of the provisions of law limiting the power of removal, as in cases of the police force, heads of bureaus, clerks, veterans, etc. We see no escape, therefore, from the conclusion that the respondents had the power to remove the relator from his office as assessor at their pleasure. The writ should be dismissed. Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred. Writ dismissed.