I am stuck in understanding a proof, where I don't really understand one step, which i specify below: (suposse that $f$ is holomorphic, thus analytic)
(I have no information about the holomorphism domain of $f$).
Result. If $\phi(x,y)$ is an algebraic function in both variables, i.e. there are polynomials $P_k(x,y)$ such that \begin{equation*} \sum_{k=0}^{N}P_k(x,y)[\phi(x,y)]^k = 0 \end{equation*} and also let $f$ be a holomorphic function such that \begin{equation*} |f(z)|^2 = \phi(x,y) \end{equation*} then $|f(z)|^2 \leq C|z|^m$, for some $m$.
EDIT. Based on @MartinR comment, $f(z)=z+1$ would be a counterexample for the inequality above, which makes it invalid. Instead, he suggested (and very well) that: \begin{equation*} |f(z)|^2 \leq C(1+|z|^m), \hspace{.2cm} \text{ for some $m$} \end{equation*} which would also verify the demonstration I am talking about in the beginning.
This is a step that appears in a proof, and I tried to write it formally as a proposition/theorem above. I would like to know where this comes from, and even if it's valid, since it's not making much sense to me. Mainly coming here to understand the result and the proof itself, not building it by myself.
Thanks for all the help in advance.