From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freund v. Hogan

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 17, 1934
190 N.E. 348 (N.Y. 1934)

Opinion

Argued March 20, 1934

Decided April 17, 1934

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

H.H. Nordlinger and Sidney I. Prager for appellant. Jerome M. Hirsch, Corporation Counsel, Saul Gordon and Samuel Jesse Buzzell for respondents.


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.


Summaries of

Freund v. Hogan

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 17, 1934
190 N.E. 348 (N.Y. 1934)
Case details for

Freund v. Hogan

Case Details

Full title:EMANUEL FREUND, Appellant, v. THOMAS J. HOGAN Individually and as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 17, 1934

Citations

190 N.E. 348 (N.Y. 1934)
190 N.E. 348

Citing Cases

Benvenga v. La Guardia

The State Constitution (art. VI, § 19) empowers the Legislature to fix the salary but contains a prohibition…

Benvenga v. La Guardia

In view of that, we shall go more into detail in this opinion than would ordinarily be necessary. Justices of…