You are here: / / A LOCAL LAW WHICH CURTAILED THE POWER OF AN ELECTED OFFICER TO ACT WAS...
,

A LOCAL LAW WHICH CURTAILED THE POWER OF AN ELECTED OFFICER TO ACT WAS DEEMED INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC REFERENDUM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a Local Law which curtailed to power of an elected officer to act was invalid because it was not subject to a public referendum. The decision and the dissent are too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Chapter 263 is substantively invalid on its face because the supermajority requirement continually curtails the power of a local officer to act … . This goes to the wisdom and merit of the local law. “Unless specifically provided by statute or charter provisions, one [local] legislature may not bind the hands of its successors in areas relating to governmental matters” … . “A local law . . . which . . . has the effect of curtailing the power of such elective officers . . . becomes operative only after approval by the majority of the qualified” voters … , since it “curtail[s] each legislator’s relative ability to cast the deciding vote” … . To rule otherwise in the instant case would bind the hands of the Town Board and the public indefinitely, merely because years in the past, no one saw fit to challenge a law which would only have practical effect years in the future…. . * * *

The power of the Town Board cannot be limited indefinitely merely because there was a procedure which would have allowed for the passage of such a provision, and although that procedure was not followed, the four-month statute of limitations for challenging procedural defects had passed. This was not a mere procedural defect. Rather, the Town Board imposed a continuing illegal infringement on the rights of future members of the Town Board, and a continuing infringement upon the rights of the voters. Hoehmann v Town of Clarkstown, 2023 NY Slip Op 02606, Second Dept 5-15-23

Affirmed by the Court of Appeals: Hoehmann v Town of Clarkstown, 2023 NY Slip Op 02750, CtApp 5-19-23

Practice Point: Here, a local law which curtailed the power of elective officers was invalid because it was not subject to a public referendum.

 

You might also like
New York Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody and Visitation Matters Due to Child’s Substantial Contacts with California
ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT FINDING DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER COUNTS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT LAW/EVIDENCE Parol Evidence (Email) Properly Admitted to Explain Ambiguous Term in Construction Contract with a Merger Clause—Relevant Law Succinctly Explained
IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANKS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (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

THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS... THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S...