You are here: / / AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE...

AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a survey submitted to the public by the village concerning the police department was not a prohibited advisory referendum. The survey was deemed to be merely a sampling of public opinion. An advisory referendum, in contrast, requires a vote during an election.  The Third Department noted that the petitioners, residents of the village, had common law taxpayer standing to bring the Article 78/declaratory judgment action because there was no other way to address the issue:

​

… [A] review of the case law dealing with an “advisory referendum” establishes that each such case involves registered voters going to a polling place during a municipal election and casting a ballot on the proposed question … . In light of this, it is our view that the proscription against an “advisory referendum” is limited to a situation where a question that is advisory in nature is placed on the ballot for a vote by the electorate.

Here, in contrast, the Board simply seeks to obtain a sampling of public sentiment regarding police services in the Village before the Board makes a decision to alter current police services. In the event that the Board decides to abolish the police department, such a local law would then be mandated to be placed on the ballot as a proposition to be voted on by the electorate at an upcoming election … . We reject petitioners’ contention that the surveys at issue here will somehow allow the Board to “avoid governmental responsibility and shift the burden of decision [regarding police services] to a public poll” … . Matter of Woodburn v Village of Owego, 2017 NY Slip Op 04513, 3rd Dept 6-8-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM)/SURVEY (MUNICIPAL LAW, AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM)/ADVISORY REFERENDUM (MUNICIPAL LAW, AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM)

You might also like
HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHY AN INMATE WITNESS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO TESTIFY LATER REFUSED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE A SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION WHICH IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT IN CRIMES CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM WAS SHOT AND THE BULLET PASSED THROUGH HIS LEG, THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WERE NOT MET; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTIONS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).
THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DETERMINATION DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA WHERE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS TO BE BUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REZONING ORDINANCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IN THIS PINS PROCEEDING, ORDER OF DISPOSITION VACATED.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIMANT IS A SEPARATE BUSINESS ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE FAIR PLAY ACT CLARIFIED; MATTER REMITTED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD FOR A DECISION WHETHER CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR USING THE CORRECT ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED A CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE STATE ASSUMES A DUTY OF PROTECTION AGAINST HARM FOR A CHILD IN ITS CUSTODY; THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE STATE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY, OVER AND ABOVE THAT OWED THE GENERAL PUBLIC (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S... DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE,...