Freund v. Hogan

New York Court of Appeals

Freund v. Hogan

190 N.E. 348, 264 N.Y. 203, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1413

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 N.E. 348 (Freund v. Hogan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freund v. Hogan, 190 N.E. 348, 264 N.Y. 203, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1413 (N.Y. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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.

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.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

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