Eberhard v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Eberhard v. City of New York

163 Misc. 370, 295 N.Y.S. 1001, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1681

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 163 Misc. 370 (Eberhard v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eberhard v. City of New York, 163 Misc. 370, 295 N.Y.S. 1001, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1681 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan; J.

I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is a constitutional officer within the provisions of section 9 of article 10 of the State Constitution. The remaining question is whether the fixation of salary by the board of estimate for plaintiff’s position in the budget for 1934 (which was adopted before plaintiff’s election) controls the amount to which the constitutional protection applies. This entails inquiry into the scope of the Laws of 1932 (Ex. Sess.), chapter 637. By express exception contained in section 2 said act did not apply to the salaries or compensation of any “ officer, employee or other person in the following State courts: * * * the Supreme Court within the First Judicial District.” The county clerk of Bronx county, within that county, is clerk of the Supreme Court, First Judicial District. (Const. art. 6, § 21; Olmsted v. Meahl, 219 N. Y. 270.) Plaintiff, as an officer of the Supreme Court, is thus exempted from the provisions of the statute.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Settle order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Callahan; J.

I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is a constitutional officer within the provisions of section 9 of article 10 of the State Constitution. The remaining question is whether the fixation of salary by the board of estimate for plaintiff’s position in the budget for 1934 (which was adopted before plaintiff’s election) controls the amount to which the constitutional protection applies. This entails inquiry into the scope of the Laws of 1932 (Ex. Sess.), chapter 637. By express exception contained in section 2 said act did not apply to the salaries or compensation of any “ officer, employee or other person in the following State courts: * * * the Supreme Court within the First Judicial District.” The county clerk of Bronx county, within that county, is clerk of the Supreme Court, First Judicial District. (Const. art. 6, § 21; Olmsted v. Meahl, 219 N. Y. 270.) Plaintiff, as an officer of the Supreme Court, is thus exempted from the provisions of the statute.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Misc. 370, 295 N.Y.S. 1001, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eberhard-v-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack