You are here: / / A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED...
, , , ,

A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a three-judge concurrence, determined that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which purported to bind current and future municipal officials to plaintiff’s rezoning request for a real estate development project violated the term limits doctrine and was unenforceable:​

“The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so” … . It recognizes that “[e]lected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors” … . The doctrine thus instructs “that where a contract ‘involves a matter of discretion to be exercised by the [municipal body,] unless the statute conferring power to contract clearly authorizes th[at body] to make a contract extending beyond its own term, no power . . . so to do exists’ ” … . The term limits doctrine reaches only “matters relating to governmental or legislative functions” … and does not apply where the municipality is “acting in its proprietary capacity” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that by entering into the MOU, the Town Board violated the term limits doctrine by purporting to “limit” a “discretionary right of [its] successors,” rendering the MOU invalid and unenforceable … . Absent an enforceable agreement, plaintiff’s contractual claims fail as a matter of law. Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Here an attempt to bind current and future municipal officials to a rezoning request for a real estate development project was deemed unenforceable because it violated the “term limits doctrine.” Consult this opinion for insight into how the “term limits doctrine” is applied.​

 

You might also like
Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required Adverse Inference Charge
Defendant’s Behavior Did Not Justify Arrest for Disorderly Conduct
A REGULATORY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN CONNECTION WITH AN FHA MORTGAGE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE LANDLORD KEEP THE PROPERTY IN GOOD REPAIR, DID NOT CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH MADE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS; THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD THEREFORE IS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A ROOF LEAK (CT APP).
Wilfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt/Supreme Court Properly Drew a Negative Inference from Defendant’s Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination
Failure to Apply the Merger Doctrine In a Kidnapping Case is not a “Mode of Proceedings” Error—Failure to Object at Trial Precludes Review
THE ETHICS COMMISSION REFORM ACT OF 2022, WHICH VESTS A COMMISSION WITH THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE ETHICS AND LOBBYING LAWS WITH RESPECT TO ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES OF THE LEGISLATURE, STATE OFFICERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, CURRENT AND FORMER CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, AND LOBBYISTS (AMONG OTHERS), DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (CT APP).
LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDERS MUST REGISTER UNDER SORA FOR 20 YEARS; LOW RISK-LEVEL SEX OFFENDERS WHO WERE REGISTERED IN ANOTHER STATE AND WHO RELOCATE TO NEW YORK ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR THE TIME THEY WERE REGISTERED OUT-OF-STATE (CT APP).
The Unaccepted Offer of a Key to Defendant’s Apartment Made to the 10-Year-Old Victim Was Sufficient to Support the Attempted Kidnapping Charge/Twenty-Year-Old Child Molestation Conviction Properly Admitted to Show Defendant’s Intent Re: Kidnapping

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 WAS STANDING ON THE SECOND RUNG FROM THE TOP, STRADDLING THE LADDER,... THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION...