Whitmore v. Mayor of New York
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Matter of Rushford v. Laguardia (N.Y. 1939)
- Schieffelin v. Leary (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1927)
- People v. Fuller (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1935)
- Haggerty v. City of New York (City of New York Municipal Court 1934)
- Levy v. Evans (New York Supreme Court 1983)
- Matter of Benvenga v. La Guardia (N.Y. 1945)
- Benvenga v. La Guardia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1944)
- Matter of Daly v. McGoldrick (N.Y. 1939)
- Claim of Kelly v. Commissioner of Records (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
- Rushford v. LaGuardia (New York Supreme Court 1938)
- Brown v. Sisti (New York Supreme Court 1936)
- Freund v. Hogan (N.Y. 1934)
- Matter of Larocca v. Flynn (N.Y. 1931)
- Matter of Adler v. Voorhis (N.Y. 1930)
- Ledwith v. Rosalsky (N.Y. 1927)
- Olmsted v. . Meahl (N.Y. 1916)
- People ex rel. Plancon v. Prendergast (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
- People ex rel. Schneider v. Prendergast (New York Supreme Court 1916)
- People ex rel. McDermott v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment (New York Supreme Court 1911)
- Hogan v. Board of Education (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- People ex rel. Foley v. Unger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1908)
- People ex rel. Allen v. Metz (New York Supreme Court 1908)
- Collins v. Russell (Ga. 1899)
- People Ex Rel. Sears v. . Tobey (N.Y. 1897)
- Stewart v. Mayor of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1897)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are of the opinion that the act, chapter 335 of the Laws of 1873, authorizing the board of apportionment to fix the salaries of all officers paid from the city treasury, does not include any but city officers, such as are connected with political organization of the city government. The act is entitled βAn act to reorganize the local government of the city of Eew York.β
The plaintiff is not such an officer, but is a judical officer, embraced within, the judiciary system of the State. (Quinn v. Mayor, etc., 44 How. Pr., 266; affirmed in this court, 53 N. Y., 627; London v. Mayor, etc., 7 J. & S., 467.)
If the legislature intended to embrace other than strictly city officers, it must be presumed that the statute would'have so declared in express terms. The constitutional question need not be considered.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concur; Folger, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.