You are here: / / Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted...
,

Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted by New York Constitution and State Law

The Second Department determined that the local law which limited the term of the county district attorney to 12 years was preempted by the New York Constitution and state law, thereby allowing the sitting district attorney (who had served for 12 years) to run for another term.  The court reasoned:

…[T]he County’s attempt to place a term limit on the office of District Attorney is impermissible. Since the office of District Attorney is not a local office falling within the ambit of NY Const, article IX, § 2(c)(1) or Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (1)(ii)(a), the County had no authority to place restrictions on the District Attorney’s terms of office. Further, even if the District Attorney is a local office falling within NY Const, article IX, § 2(c)(1) and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a), the New York Constitution and state law, together, so expansively and comprehensively regulate the office, that a county government’s ability to place restrictions on a District Attorney’s terms of office has been preempted. *  *  *

Pursuant to the maxim of statutory construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” “where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240…). Here, in light of the fact that the New York Constitution and state law speak to the duration and term of office of the District Attorney, there is an irrefutable inference that the imposition of any limit on the duration of that office was intended to be omitted or excluded (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240…). Indeed, regarding County Court judges, the New York Constitution provides for a 10-year term (see NY Const, art VI, § 10[b]) and a maximum duration to age 70 (see NY Const, art VI, § 25[b]). That the Constitution imposed a durational limit on County Court judges, but not on District Attorneys, who are also “constitutional officers,” indicates that the omission was intentional and that it was intended that there be no durational limit on District Attorneys. Matter of Hoerger v Spota, 2013 NY slip Op 05661, 2nd Dept 8-16-13

 

You might also like
DENIAL OF PAROLEE’S REQUEST TO LIVE IN HIS FAMILY HOME WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON COMMUNITY PRESSURE AND WAS REVERSED AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY AND FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF A POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION ARISING FROM A RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.
Request to File Late Notice of Claim Granted in Absence of Good Reason for Delay

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Candidate’s Failure to File Certificate of Declination Re: His Accepted Candidacy... Applying New Jersey Law—Removal of Safety Guard from Machine Did Not Destroy...