O'Donnell v. FergusonO'Donnell v. Ferguson
—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition in part by reinstating petitioner to the position of part-time police officer in the Town of Evans, directing that he remain in that position unless suspended or dismissed pursuant to Town Law § 155, and ordering a hearing on damages.
From 1990 until 1998, petitioner had been appointed annually as a part-time police officer by the Town Board of the Town
We agree with respondents that petitioner was a “special” police officer appointed pursuant to Town Law § 158 (1) who served at the pleasure of the Town Board and therefore was not entitled to the protections of Town Law § 155. Thus, the court erred in determining that the Town Board lacked authority to dismiss petitioner without first complying with Town Law § 155. Pursuant to Town Law § 158 (1), the Town Board “may employ temporary police officers from time to time” as the Town Board deems necessary, and such officers “shall serve at the pleasure of the town board.” “[S]uch police officers shall be known as ‘special policemen’ and shall have all the power and authority conferred upon constables by the general laws of the state and such additional powers, not inconsistent with law, as shall be conferred upon them by the town board.” (Town Law § 158 [1].) We reject the contention of petitioner that he was employed on a regular basis as a part-time police officer rather than as a “special” police officer; petitioner was not scheduled to work on a regular part-time basis, but was called only from “time to time” to work on a temporary basis (Town Law § 158 [1]; cf., Matter of Goldfluss v Bonali,