Hirshfield v. Hanley

• Decision Date: 13 April 1920
• Citation: 228 N.Y. 346,127 N.E. 252
• Parties: HIRSHFIELD, Com'r of Accounts, v. HANLEY.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

228 N.Y. 346

127 N.E. 252

HIRSHFIELD, Com'r of Accounts,

v.HANLEY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 13, 1920.

In the matter of the application of David Hirshfield, Commissioner of Accounts of the City of New York, for a warrant for the arrest and commitment to jail of Stephen J. Hanley. Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Division (178 N. Y. Supp. 895), affirming an order of the Special Term denying the application.

Orders reversed, and motion granted.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel, of New York City (John F. O'Brien, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Jeremiah T. Mahoney, of New York City, for respondent.

Leonard M. Wallstein, of New York City, for intervener City Government Committee of Citizens' Union of New York City.

COLLIN, J.

At the time involved in this proceeding David Hirshfield was the commissioner of accounts in the city of New York. The section of the charter of the city (Laws 1901, c. 466, amended by Laws 1916, c. 517), which authorized his appointment defined his duties and powers as follows:

‘It shall be the duty of the commissioner of accounts, once in three months, to make an examination of the receipts and disbursements in the offices of the comptroller and chamberlain, in connection with those of all the departments and officers making returns thereto, and report to the mayor a detailed and classified statement of the financial condition of the city as shown by such examinations. He shall also make such special examinations of the accounts and methods of the departments and officers of the city and of the counties of New York, Richmond, Queens, Kings and Bronx, as the mayor may from time to time direct, and such other examinations as the said commissioner may deem for the best interests of the city, and report to the mayor and the board of aldermen the results thereof. For the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with these examinations he shall have full power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to administer oaths and to examine such persons as he may deem necessary.’ Section 119.

In the process of examining the accounts of the department of taxes and assessments the commissioner caused to be subpoenaed as a witness the respondent, Hanley, who failed to obey the subpoena, and refused to be sworn or testify as a witness when brought before the commissioner under a warrant of attachment. The commissioner thereupon applied to the Special Term for an order requiring Hanley to show cause...