
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Thomas J. Linnekin, Appellant and Respondent, v. John Ennis, Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of Brooklyn, Respondent and Appellant.
    
      ml service—mandamus to restore a person to cm .office which has been abolished, denied—a wrong reason is not a reversible error.
    
    Where, upon a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the respondent to reinstate the relator in his position as pilot in the fire department of the city of Brooklyn, the affidavit submitted upon the part,of the respondent states that the relator’s position was duly abolished, and there is nothing to impeach the good faith of the respondent in abolishing it, the motion should be denied.
    
      Semble, that the fact that .the denial was placed upon . the ground that the relator’s remedy was by certiorari instead of by mandamus, is not a ground, for the reversal of the order denying the writ, as it is not a legal error" to assign a wrong reason for a correct conclusion.
    Appeal by the relator, Thomas J. Linnekin, from au order of the City Court of Brooklyn, made at a Special Term thereof and entered in the office of the clerk of .said court on the 19th day of November, 1886, denying his application for a peremptory. writ of mandamus, requiring the defendant'to restore the relator to his position as. pilot in the fire department of the city of Brooklyn.
    Also, a motion by the defendant, John Ennis, commissioner of the fire department of the city of Brooklyn, to _ dismiss the above appeal.
    Also,-an appeal by the defendant, John Ennis, commissioner of the fire department of-the city of Brooklyn,-from an. order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of March, 1897, requiring the defendant to accept the relator’s notice of appeal from the first-mentioned order.
    
      Jesse Jo7mson, for the appellant.
    
      JosepTi A. Burr, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

On January 2, 1886, the relator was appointed a pilot in the fire department of the city of Brooklyn and assigned to duty as pilot upon the fireboat Set7i Low. He continued in such .position until the 27th day of February, 1886, when he was summarily removed from such position by the defendant. Thereupon, and on April thirtieth of the same year, he procured to he issued an order to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue against the defendant requiring him to forthwith reinstate and restore the said relator in his position as pilot. The moving papers recited the facts as above stated, and such application was met on the part of the defendant by an affidavit of the deputy commissioner of the fire department, which stated that.“the said relator was duly removed from said position, and thereupon and thereafter the said position of pilot was duly abolished.” This fact was not controverted by anything which appeared in the moving papers nor was any application made by the relator for an alternative writ. - The relator then insisted that he was entitled to the peremptory writ and submitted such claim to the court for determination. The court denied the application, and from the order entered thereon this appeal is taken. ■ It is clear that the order denying the peremptory writ was properly made. We do not understand it to be contended that the position held by the relator could, not be abolished, and nothing which appeared in the papers put that fact in issue. It has been uniformly held that a position may be abolished unless there is some express prohibition in the law (Phillips v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 88 N. Y. 245), and here there is- none.

There is -nothing before the court which reflects upon the good faith of the defendant in abolishing the position, and the relator is concluded in this respect by what appears in the opposing affidavit. (People ex rel. McCanna v. Commissioners, 1 App. Div. 3.) As the relator insisted upon. his motion for the peremptory writ, the determination of the question became one of law. based upon the assumption that the position had been lawfully abolished. (The People ex rel. P. C. Savings Bank v. Cromwell, 102 N. Y. 477; The People ex rel. Corrigan v. The Mayor, etc., 149 id. 215.)

The result,, therefore, is that the relator made no case entitling him to the writ, and the order must be upheld. It is-stated in the affidavit of the attorney for the relator that the motion was denied upon the ground that, the remedy of the relator was by certiorari . instead of mandamus. It is sufficient to say of this Statement that ,such affidavit is ineffective to show the ground of the decision. If such fact'be assumed, however, it does not change the result,, as it is • not legal error to assign a wrong reason for a correct conclusion. The decision .of the motions made to dismiss the appeal, and of the defendant from the. order compelling an acceptance of the notice of appeal herein, in view of the. conclusion we have reached, cease to be of practical importance, and the motion to dismiss and the appeal from the order compelling the acceptance of the notice of appeal may, therefore, be dismissed,, without costs.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. .

All concurred, except Goodrich, P. J., not sitting.'

Order denying motion for peremptory writ of mandamus affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.; motion to.dismiss appeal from above order denied, without costs ; ■ appeal from order directing respondent to receive notice of appeal dismissed, without costs.  