31 App. Div. 503
A public officer who wrongfully removes a civil service employee without a hearing is liable for damages, even after the employee is reinstated via mandamus.
Summary
Nuttall, a former volunteer firefighter, was wrongfully discharged from his civil service position by Simis. After being reinstated via mandamus, Nuttall sued Simis for damages resulting from the wrongful removal. The court addressed whether a wrongfully discharged civil service employee, reinstated by mandamus, can sue the officer who removed him for damages, especially when the position was filled in the interim. The court held that Simis was liable for damages, as the removal was a ministerial act of misfeasance that deprived Nuttall of his right to the position and its associated salary. Mandamus provides reinstatement, but not complete remedy.
Facts
Nuttall was a former volunteer firefighter holding a position in civil service.
Simis, a public officer, removed Nuttall from his position without providing a hearing.
Nuttall’s position was filled by another person after his removal.
Nuttall successfully obtained a writ of mandamus, leading to his reinstatement.
Nuttall then sued Simis for damages suffered because of the wrongful removal, specifically the lost salary during his period of unemployment.
Procedural History
The trial court found in favor of Nuttall, holding Simis liable for damages.
Simis appealed the decision.
The appellate court reviewed the case to determine the extent of liability for wrongful removal from a civil service position.
Issue(s)
Whether a public officer who wrongfully removes a civil service employee without a hearing is liable for damages, even after the employee is reinstated via mandamus.
Holding
Yes, because the act of removing the employee without a hearing constitutes misfeasance, entitling the employee to damages for the loss of salary and deprivation of rights. Mandamus is not a complete remedy.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the wrongful removal without a hearing was a ministerial act of misfeasance on the part of Simis, making him liable for damages. The court emphasized that while a public position is not property in the traditional sense, wrongful removal still deprives the employee of a right, specifically the right to the position and its associated salary. The court cited the principle established in Ashby v. White, stating that “where there is a right there is a remedy.” The court also noted that while Nuttall could have sought damages in the mandamus proceeding, he was not obligated to do so, and pursuing a separate action for damages was permissible. Even if Simis acted with good motives, he was still liable for violating the law. The court found that the appropriate measure of damages was the salary Nuttall lost due to Simis’s wrongful act. The court stated, “The loss is the amount of salary of which plaintiff has been deprived by defendant’s, wrongful act.”