From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
People v. Hochberg
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
62 App.Div.2d 239, 404 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1978)
Facts
New York State Assemblyman Alan Hochberg (defendant) planned to run for assembly reelection in 1976 and civil court judge in 1977. Hochberg met with Charles Rosen, a popular political chairman and leader of a rent strike in Co-Op City, and he offered Rosen a $20,000 per year job in the legislature, a $3,000 session job for Rosen’s brother-in-law, and a $5,000 political contribution if Rosen agreed to not run against him in the 1976 primary. Hochberg told Rosen that because he planned to run for civil court judge in a few years, he could not afford to run an assembly primary campaign. Hochberg was charged with violating several sections of the New York Election Law and the Public Officers Law for misusing his position and attempting to sway the results of the primary election. At trial, a jury found Hochberg in violation of the New York Election Law and Public Officers Law, and Hochberg was convicted. Hochberg’s actions were found to fall under the definition of bribery because Hochberg attempted to secure Rosen’s promise to not run in the primary to Hochberg’s benefit. Hochberg appealed, arguing that his proposed exchange would not have resulted in him receiving a thing of personal advantage.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mikoll, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
