Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Petitioner seeks review of a determination removing him from the position of "Officer-in-Charge" of the Centre Island Police Department and "demoting" him from the position of "Detective" with that department. Upon this record it is evident that neither position is a tenured or permanent civil service position or that of a public officer which would require formal charges and a hearing prior to petitioner's dismissal ( see, e.g., Matter of Carter v. Murphy, 80 A.D.2d 960; Matter of Lancto v. Saranac Lake Cent. School Dist., 102 A.D.2d 913; Civil Service Law §§ 75, 77). Petitioner was not dismissed from the village police force or subjected to any disciplinary action in regard to his permanent position as a police officer so as to invoke the provisions of Village Law § 8-804.
Petitioner was given the discretionary title of "Detective" by virtue of the expired collective bargaining agreement between the village and the Village Police Benevolent Association. His later appointment as "Officer-in-Charge" was made by virtue of his position of "Detective" and was made pending civil service approval and the filling of the newly created position of part-time police chief. Moreover, the record adequately demonstrates that both positions are in the nature of nonreviewable discretionary "details" or appointments ( see, e.g., Matter of Detective Endowment Assn. v. Leary, 36 A.D.2d 289, affd 30 N.Y.2d 577; Foran v. Cawley, 77 Misc.2d 809). Furthermore, the extraordinary and drastic remedy of mandamus to review will not ordinarily lie unless there is no other adequate specific remedy at law ( Matter of Fried v. Fox, 49 A.D.2d 877). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.