
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Harry P. Lee, Relator, v. Robert Adamson, as Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.
    Second Department,
    February 11, 1916.
    Municipal corporations — discharge of employee of fire department, city of Mew York—certiorari — practice — veteran fireman—acts necessary to acquire status of veteran.
    On certiorari to review the proceedings of the fire commissioner of the city of Mew York in dismising an employee, the court cannot go outside the facts embodied in the return.
    An employee does not obtain the status or statutory rights of a discharged volunteer fireman by merely filing his certificate of discharge. He must bring it to the personal attention of the commission.
    The determination of the fire commissioner in removing an employee, being within his statutory powers, is not reviewable by certiorari
    
      Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 5th day of February, 1915, directed to Robert Adamson, as fire commissioner of the city of New York, commanding him to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of Queens all and singular his proceedings had in dismissing the relator, a lineman in his department, after a hearing on charges.
    
      Alfred J. Talley [.Dennis R. O’Brien with him on the brief], for the relator.
    
      Frank Julian Price [Frank L. Polk and Thomas F. Magner with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

As the court cannot go outside the facts embodied in the return (People ex rel. Miller v. Wurster, 149 N. Y. 549; People ex rel. Lester v. Eno, 176 id. 513), we could not, against the denials in the return, accord to relator the status of a discharged volunteer fireman. Merely filing a certificate of discharge without bringing the applicant’s claim to the commissioner’s personal attention would not confer the statutory privilege of a veteran. (People ex rel. Robesch v. President, etc., 190 N. Y. 497; Matter of Knapp v. Duffey, 169 App. Div. 794.) The relator has been “allowed an opportunity of making an explanation ” (Greater N. Y. Charter [Laws of 1901, chap. 466], § 1543), and a statement of the reasons for his removal has been filed in the department. Such grounds are real and substantial. (Matter of Griffin v. Thompson, 202 N. Y. 104.)

The determination of the commissioner, being within his statutory powers of removal, is not reviewable by certiorari. (People ex rel. Kennedy v. Brady, 166 N. Y. 44.)

The writ is, therefore, dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Writ dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.  