Freund v. Hogan

190 N.E. 348, 264 N.Y. 203, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1413
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 17, 1934·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

190 N.E. 348 (Freund v. Hogan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mathews v. Atlas Liquors, Inc.
270 N.E.2d 453 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1971)
Matter of Benvenga v. La Guardia
63 N.E.2d 88 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Benvenga v. La Guardia
268 A.D. 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)