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
THE PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ON CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND CHILD ABUSE; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE WHEN THE REQUEST TO PRESENT A REBUTTAL WITNESS WAS DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE WITNESS’S TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE PERPETRATOR’S FACE AND DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT FIRE A GUN MERELY FAILED TO CORROBORATE OR BOLSTER THE PEOPLE’S CASE, IT DID NOT CONTRADICT OR DISPROVE ANY EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BY ENTERING A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A TESTIFYING CODEFENDANT THE TRIAL JUDGE ABANDONED THE ROLE OF A NEUTRAL ARBITER AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED FAILURE TO CLEAN UP LOOSE GRAVEL IN A BIKE PATH AFTER PATCHING A HOLE CAUSED THE BICYCLE ACCIDENT.
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED THE MORTGAGE DEBT, STARTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANEW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN THE ORIGINAL DEED DIVIDING THE PROPERTY INTO EIGHT PARTS WAS A VALID DEFENSE TO THE PARTITION ACTION; HOWEVER, IF DEEMED TO RUN WITH THE LAND, THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES (SECOND DEPT).

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

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...