Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

264 N.Y. 203

190 N.E 348

Freund v. Hogan

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 17, 1934

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1934-04-17

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1971

3 state decisions

Relies on Whitmore v. Mayor of New York · Ledwith v. Rosalsky

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1934-04-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The question is whether the City Judge of Long Beach is a city officer, so that the council of such city may increase his compensation under the City Home Rule Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 76), or a State officer (Whitmore v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 21), whose salary can be regulated only by the Legislature.

¶2 The question has been answered to the effect that, so far as compensation is concerned, he is a city officer. (People ex rel. Garrity v. Walsh, 181 App. Div. 118; cited with approval by this court, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N. Y. 406, 410.)

¶3 The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

¶4 Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., not sitting. Judgment affirmed.

/264/ny/203 · .json · Public domain