48 N.Y.S. 1043 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1897
Before the 6th of June, 1895, the relator was a police officer and patrolman in the town of Wakefield, in Westchester county. By chapter 934 of the Laws of 1895, that town, with the town of East Chester and portions of the towns of Westchester and Pelham, was annexed to the city of New York. The relator claims that under the provisions of that act lie became a policeman of the city of New York and entitled to receive a salary as such, and his complaint is that the respondents have refused to regard him as a policeman and to pay him the salary justly due to him, or to assign him to any duty, or to allow him to perform his duty as such patrolman; and he asks for a mandamus to compel the respondents to restore him to duty as a patrolman of the police, and requiring them to pay him
So far as the relator asks, upon this motion, that the salary which he claims to have already earned as a policeman should be' paid to him, he has mistaken his remedy. If, as he says, he is still a member of the police force, and has been such since the annexation of the town in which he lives, and for that reason is entitled to receive the same salary as other policemen, his claim is a mere common-law demand for money which is owing to him by the city of New York; and his remedy is to be sought, not by the extraordinary process of a mandamus, but by an action for the salary which he claims to be due him, as any other debt is to be collected. (People ex rel. Steinson v. The Board of Education, 60 Hun, 486; affd., 148 N. Y. 766.)
The claim of the relator, that he is entitled to be restored to his official rights and privileges as a policeman, and assigned 'to duty as such, is based upon a contention that, by force of the act which annexed the town of Wakefield, in the county of Westchester, to the city of New York, he was transferred from his position as a policeman of that town to a member of the police force of the city of New York; and the question he presents is, whether the Annexation Act of 1895, under which he claims, contains any provision, either in itself or by reference to any other act, which is effectual to operate as he insists that it does. The act of 1895, in itself, contains no provision with reference to the policemen of the towns or villages which are annexed to the city of New York. It does, however, mention certain town and village officials who, by the express terms of that act, are retained in office for a certain time and for certain purposes; and the fact that, these officials are expressly referred to in the act, for the purpose of retaining them in office, shows quite clearly that it was not supposed that other officials would be kept in office unless there was a special provision to that effect. This seems to be recognized by the relator, and he seeks to introduce into the law of 1895 a special provision retaining him in office. Section 1 of the law of 1895 (Chap. 934) provides
The relator claims that the words “ as if such territory had been included within said twenty-fourth ward by the provisions of chapter-six hundred and thirteen of the laws of one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,” are to be construed as making that act a part of chapter 934 of the Laws of 1895, or, at least, of making all the provisions of that act applicable to the territory annexed by the last-mentioned law. If the words quoted are susceptible of the construction which the relator insists upon giving to them, and by them the provisions of chapter 613 of the Laws of 1873 are made a part of the law of 1895, it would yet have no such effect as the relator insists upon giving to it. It could only introduce the words of that statute into the law of 1895, and the result of it would be that the police officers and patrolmen who were in office in the towns mentioned in the law of 1873 would remain in office, but it would not enlarge the scope o.f those words so as to make them apply to the towns mentioned in the law of 1895, because there is nothing in the
The contention of the relator, therefore, fails at the outset. He never became a member of the police force of New York, and for that reason the order which denied his motion for a writ of man-
Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.