
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles C. Robesch, Relator, v. The President of the Borough of Queens and Others, Respondents.
    Second Department,
    July 23, 1907.
    Civil service — certificate of exemption—notice.
    When an employee in the department of highways of the borough of Queens has filed in the office of the department of highways of the city a certificate that he is an exempt volunteer fireman, the certificate is notice" to the borough president of his status and that he is entitled to such a hearing on notice and charges as is afforded by the Civil Service Law. i
    A petition on certiorari to review proceedings had on the dismissal "of such employee sufficiently shows the status of the relator as an exempt voluntéer fireman when it alleges the filing of such certificate in the department of highways of the city.
    Gaynob, J., dissented, with opinion.
    Oebtiobabi issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 16th day of January, 1906, directed to the president of the borough of Queens and others, commanding them to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of Queens all and singular their proceedings had'in relation to the dismissal of the relator from the position of foreman in the bureau of highways in the borough of Queens.
    
      Harry C. Underhill, for the relator.
    
      James D. Bell [Edward Lazansky and William B. Ellison with him on the brief], for the respondents.
   Jenks, J.:

The relator was dismissed his place of foreman in the department of highways of the borough of Queens by the president of the borough. His grievance is that although he was an exempt volunteer fireman he did not have such a hearing, on notice and charges, as is afforded to him by the Civil Service Law. It cannot be gainsaid that the return shows that in several respects the rights assured by such a hearing were either denied or substantially withheld. The only debatable question is whether the president of the borough was apprised of this status of the relator.

The petition shows not only that the petitioner is a veteran exempt volunteer fireman, but also “ that his certificate as such veteran exempt was duly filed in the office of the Department of Highways of the City of New York on or about the 10th day of July, 1902.” In People ex rel. McDonald v. Clausen (50 App. Div. 286; appeal dismissed, 163 N. Y. 523) this court, in its first department, say: “ To charge a public official with notice of the fact that his subordinate employees are honorably discharged veterans requires that a distinct notice shall be given to the' official in relation to the status of the employee as regards the office or employment which he holds, or a record in the department from which that fact can be ascertained.” I think that this filing of such certificate was sufficient notice of his status.

The determination must be annulled, with costs, and thé relator reinstated, with costs.

Woodwabd and Rich, JJ., concurred; Gtaynoe, J., read for confirmation.*

Gaynor, J.

(dissenting):

The relator was dismissed from his position as foreman in the department of highways in the borough of Queens by the president of that borough. He claims that his. dismissal was illegal in that he was not given the hearing on notice and upon stated charges required by section 21 of the civil service law. That section requires such a hearing to one “ who shall have served the term required by law in the volunteer fire department of any city, town or village'in the state, or who shall have been a member thereof at the time of the disbandment of such volunteer fire department ”. In ■his petition on which the writ was obtained the petitioner alleges that he is “ a veteran exempt volunteer fireman ” ; and this is all there is on the subject, except the further allegation that “his certificate as such veteran exempt was duly filed in the office of the Department of Highways of the City of New York on or about the 10th day of July, 1902 ”. It is insufficient; it is necessary that the facts prescribed by the statute should be specifically shown. A mere statement of a legal conclusion does not suffice; and the relator does not even do that much (People ex rel. Lawson v. Coler, 159 N. Y. 569; 40 App. Div. 65). The statement that the certificate was filed in the office of the Department of Highways is a useless one; and to call the paper filed a “ certificate as such veteran ” was only to state a conclusion. Moreover, no evidence was given to prove the allegation of veteranship. It, was not for the Borough President, the respondent, to take it for granted. The relator was claiming a privilege, and had to make it out.

The determination of the respondent should be confirmed.

Determination reversed, with costs, and relator reinstated, with costs. . 
      
       See Laws of 1899, chap. 370, § 21, as amd. by Laws of 1902, chap. 270, and Laws of 1904, chap. 697.— [Rep.
     