In re Buhler

43 Misc. 140, 88 N.Y.S. 195
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 Misc. 140 (In re Buhler) 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
In re Buhler, 43 Misc. 140, 88 N.Y.S. 195 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1904).

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The petitioner was appointed crier of the courts of record of Queens county by the County Judge, under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and served as such until January 2nd, 1904, when he was removed without charges by the respondent, who is County Judge. He was a public officer (Throop on Pub. Officers, ch. 1; Rowland v. Mayor, 83 N. Y. 372). He claims that he is irremovable except on charges and after a hearing because he is a veteran fireman. But he is ineligible to the office. He does not reside in Queens county but in ¡Nassau county. He was a resident of Queens county when appointed, but in that part of it which was afterwards set off as ¡Nassau county, and he resides in the same place still. By section 3 of the Public Officers Law no person is capable of holding a local office unless he be a resident of the municipal corporation or local subdivision within which his official functions are to be exer[141]*141cised; and by section 20 the office becomes vacant by his ceasing to be such resident (People ex rel. Grogan v. Glass, 19 App. Div. 454).

The application is denied without costa.

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

Related

Daniman v. Board of Education
119 N.E.2d 373 (New York Court of Appeals, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Misc. 140, 88 N.Y.S. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-buhler-nysupct-1904.