Case ID: ny_264/html/0203-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emanuel Freund, Appellant, v. Thomas J. Hogan Individually and as Treasurer of the City of Long Beach, et al., Respondents.
    (Argued March 20, 1934;
    decided April 17, 1934.)
    
      H. H, Nordlinger and Sidney I. Prager for appellant.
    The City Court of Long Beach is not part of the city government but is part of the judicial system of the State. (Whitmore v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 21; People ex rel. Gilchrist v. Murray, 73 N. Y. 535; Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N. Y. 406; Matter of Adler v. Voorhis, 254 N. Y. 375; Schieffelin v. Leary, 219 App. Div. 660; Schieffelin v. Berry, 217 App. Div. 451; 243 N. Y. 603; Stewart v. Mayor, 15 App. Div. 548; Susswein v. Frankel, 141 Misc. Rep. 832; 234 App. Div. 873; Matter of Siracusa, 125 Misc. Rep. 882; Matter of Prendergast v. Cohalan, 101 Misc. Rep. 712; 179 App. Div. 883; 226 N. Y. 636.)
    
      Jerome M. Hirsch, Corporation Counsel, Saul Gordon and Samuel Jesse Buzzell for respondents.
    The City Judge of the city of Long Beach is a city officer, under the express provisions of the charter of the city, and the Council of the city had power, by local law, to increase his salary. (Adler v. Deegan, 251 N. Y. 467; Matter of Gresser v. O’Brien, 146 Misc. Rep. 909; Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N. Y. 406; Whitmore v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 21; People ex rel. Garrity v. Walsh, 181 App. Div. 118.)
   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.