You are here: / / Different Monetary Standards in Wicks Law (Re: Bids for Construction Contracts)...
,

Different Monetary Standards in Wicks Law (Re: Bids for Construction Contracts) for Different Regions of State Did Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that the Wicks Law, as amended, did not violate the Home Rule section of the State Constitution.  The Wicks Law “requires public entities seeking bids on construction contracts to obtain ‘separate specification’ for three ‘subdivisions of the work to be performed’—generally, plumbing, electrical and HVAC…”.  Until 2008 the Wicks Law applied to all contracts which exceeded $50,000.  The 2008 amendment raised the contract-amounts and imposed different thresholds for New York City, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, and the 54 remaining counties.  The Home Rule section provides: “(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable provisions of this constitution, the legislature:  . . .  (2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law, or by special law… .”  There was no attempt to comply with the “special law” requirements.  The Court of Appeals determined that the proper test for determining whether the Home Rule section has been complied with is whether the statute relates primarily to a “matter of State concern:”

“The test is . . . that if the subject be in a substantial degree a matter of State concern, the Legislature may act, though intermingled with it are concerns of the locality… .” * * * This principle controls this case. It can hardly be disputed, and plaintiffs here do not dispute, that the manner of bidding on public construction contracts is a matter of substantial State concern. The existence of the Wicks Law itself for the last century, and of much other legislation governing public contracting (e.g., General Municipal Law § 100-a, [requiring competitive bidding]) attests to this. The very amendments of which plaintiffs complain, though they do not treat all counties alike, unquestionably affect the State as a whole.  Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc…v Smith…, No 101, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

You might also like
NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT.
AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (JANUARY 14), PAYMENT WAS NOT TIMELY MADE IN 2018 AND DECEDENT DIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2018, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 31-DAY GRACE PERIOD; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE POLICY WAS AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SUCH THAT THE GRACE PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF DEATH (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED THE RELEASE TO APPLY TO A PENDING FALSE ARREST ACTION, THE PENDING ACTION WAS NOT LISTED IN THE RELEASE AS AN EXCLUSION AND IS THEREFORE PRECLUDED (CT APP).
Standing Criteria for Petitioning for Review of Municipal Environmental Rulings Clarified; The Fact that Many People, in Addition to Petitioner, Will Suffer the Same Adverse Effects as Petitioner, Did Not Negate Petitioner’s Standing
IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).
“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under Established Principles of Contract Interpretation—The Clause Did Not Preclude Suit By Securityholders Based Upon Their Common Law and Statutory Rights In an Action Stemming from the “Credit Default Swap” Crisis
Normal Behavior of Horse (Jerking Head Back) Not Actionable​
A POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICTIMS BUT THE VICTIMS DID NOT TESTIFY; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL MENTIONED THE LACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE ARGUMENT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED; THEREFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Substitute Judge Can Rule on Motion Argued Before Another Judge HAIL Act Regulating Taxi Cabs and Livery Vehicles in New York City Does Not...