You are here: / / THE NYC LOCAL LAW ALLOWING NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS...
, ,

THE NYC LOCAL LAW ALLOWING NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Wooten, over a comprehensive partial concurrence and partial dissent, determined that a NYC Local Law which allowed non-citizens to vote in NYC municipal elections is invalid. The opinion addressed in detail the standing of the different categories of plaintiffs and the validity of the Local Law under the NYS Constitution, the Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law:

This case concerns the validity of Local Law No. 11 (2022) of City of New York, which created a new class of voters eligible to vote in municipal elections consisting of individuals who are not United States citizens and who meet certain enumerated criteria. We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void. …

The local law created a new class of voters called “municipal voters” who would be entitled to vote in municipal elections for the offices of mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and council member. The law defines a “municipal voter” as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who meets the following criteria: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York [C]ity and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or pre-registering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or pre-registered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter.” Fossella v Adams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00891, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: A NYC Local Law allowing non-US citizens to vote in NYC municipal elections is null and void.

 

You might also like
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A GROUP FOSTER HOME, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A DISCOVERABILITY HEARING BEFORE DETERMINING WHICH FOSTER-CARE RECORDS WERE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY A TEACHER WERE BASED ON HER INABILITY TO CONSENT UNDER THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL COULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION UNTIL PLAINTIFF TURNED 17; ALTHOUGH THE ABUSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, THE TEACHER, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ALLEGEDLY MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET HER AFTER SCHOOL; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MOUND OF SNOW AND ICE WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY PLOWING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING, ZONING BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCES WAS THEREFORE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (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

WHERE MODIFICATION OF A SECURING ORDER (RELEASE ON BAIL) IS NOT BASED UPON RISK... THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS”...