New York Court of Appeals, 1934

Freund v. Hogan

Freund v. Hogan
New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 17, 1934 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
190 N.E. 348; 264 N.Y. 203; 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1413 (North Eastern Reporter)
Freund v. Hogan

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.