Ambro v. Board of Sup'rs of Suffolk County

• Decision Date: 13 February 1968
• Parties: Jerome A. AMBRO, Thomas J. Casey, Town of Huntington, Town of Babylon and Town of Islip, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, New York, County of Suffolk, Town of East Hampton, Town of Riverhead, Town of Shelter Island, Town of Southampton and Town of Southold, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 458

287 N.Y.S.2d 458

55 Misc.2d 1019

Jerome A. AMBRO, Thomas J. Casey, Town of Huntington, Town of Babylon and Town of Islip, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, New York, County of Suffolk, Town of East Hampton, Town of Riverhead Town of Shelter Island, Town of Southampton and Town of Southold, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County, Part I.

Feb. 13, 1968.

Leon Lazer, Huntington, for plaintiffs, Ambro and Casey; Frederic Block, Centereach, of counsel.

Richard C. Cahn, Huntington, for plaintiffs, Towns of Huntington, Babylon and Islip.

George W. Percy, Jr., Suffolk County Atty., for defendants, Board of Supervisors of Suffolk County and County of Suffolk; Stanley S. Corwin, Greenport, of counsel.

Smith, Tasker, Finkelstein & Lundberg, Riverhead, for intervenor-defendants; Pierre G. Lundberg, Riverhead, of counsel.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York; Daniel M. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel.

MEMORANDUM

MARIO PITTONI, Justice.

This is another of the many actions which have been prompted by the fairly recent apportionment decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; WMCA v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Sailors v. Bd. of Education, 387 U.S. 105, 87 S.Ct. 1549, 18 L.Ed.2d 650; Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656, and others. The New York Court of Appeals has also made declarations of law in the same area in Iannucci v. Bd. of Supervisors, 20 N.Y.2d 244, 282 N.Y.S.2d 502, 229 N.E.2d 195; Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y.2d 94, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 209 N.E.2d 778, and others.

When the matter was presented to me in October 1967, I gave all parties reasonable time and latitude in the preparation and submission of further papers and briefs. I also agreed to delay my decision a reasonable time on the representation that a similar case, Avery v. Midland County, Texas, had just been submitted to and argued before the United States Supreme Court. However, it is now the middle of February, 1968 and justice can best be served by rendering my decision immediately, without further delay. After all, no matter how much time I delay or spend in attempting to write a learned or learned sounding decision, my conclusions will be reviewed by two and perhaps three appellate courts. Ultimate justice in this case will be rendered, not by me, but by the highest tribunal which will have the last say in this case.

Now for the case itself:

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, in their action for declaratory judgment. They attack, on constitutional grounds, the present apportionment of the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors. Plaintiffs contend that the Board, as presently constituted, violates the equal protection clause of the New York State Constitution (Section 11, Article I) which is similar to that of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. It states that 'No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or Any subdivision thereof.' (emphasis added)

Defendants cross move for summary judgment on the ground that in a local government, such as Suffolk County, possessing powers and structure as a confederation of towns, a classification is permitted, and improper discrimination does not exist merely because of population disparities in the towns.

No essential facts are in dispute. Under the present system, the Supervisor of each of Suffolk County's ten towns, elected as such by the voters of his town, casts one vote when serving in his other role as a member of the County Board of Supervisors, without regard to the population of his town (This is pursuant to Section 203 of the Suffolk County Charter, Laws 1958, c. 278, a provision identical to Sections 150 and 153 of the County Law, applicable to non-charter counties).

The population of each town in Suffolk County for the year 1960 as set forth in the United States Census of Population was as follows:

                Shelter Island    1,312
                East Hampton      8,827
                Southold         13,295
                Riverhead        14,519
                Southampton      26,861
                Smithtown        50,347
                Brookhaven      109,900
                Huntington      126,221
                Babylon         142,309
                Islip           172,959
                

The approximate population of each town in Suffolk County as of January 1, 1967 was as follows:

                Shelter Island    1,555
                East Hampton     11,581
                Southold         15,940
                Riverhead        17,367
                Southampton      33,295
                Brookhaven      189,831
                Islip           251,901
                Huntington      175,975
                Babylon         190,497
                Smithtown        94,988
                

The effect, to take an example, is that the Town of Shelter Island, with approximately 1,555 people, enjoys, through its supervisor, the same voting power and effect as the Town of Islip, with approximately 252,000 people. Furthermore, the five east end towns, with about 9 or 10% Of the whole population of Suffolk County, enjoy equal voting strength and influence on county matters as the five west end towns.

Although the relief sought in this case is solely pursuant to the equal protection provision of the New York State Constitution, the similarity of the State and Federal equal protection clauses command respect for and obedience to the United States Supreme Court decisions in this area. The guarantee of 'one person, one vote' commanded by the United States Supreme Court decisions has equal application to elective legislative bodies below the level of the State Legislature (Iannucci v. Bd. of Supervisors, 20 N.Y.2d 244, 249, 282 N.Y.S.2d 502, 505, 229 N.E.2d 195, 197; Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y.2d 94, 101, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 448, 209 N.E.2d 778, 781). Thus, all municipalities, villages, towns, cities and counties, as political subdivisions of the State and exercising only those powers delegated to them by the State (Section 1, Art. IX, State Constitution), must insure that the vote of each citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of every other citizen, be it Suffolk or any other such municipality in this State. In the words of Chief Judge Fuld in the Iannucci case, pages 249, 250, 282 N.Y.S.2d page 506, 229 N.E.2d page 197:

'There is no doubt that, as presently constituted, both Boards of Supervisors are malapportioned. Equal representation on the boards of municipalities with populations that vary from a few hundred to many thousands does not satisfy the 'one person, one vote' principle announced in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 and, although the United States Supreme Court has not as yet passed upon the question (see, e.g., Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656; Avery v. Midland County, 406 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.), cert. granted 388 U.S. 905, 87 S.Ct. 2106, 18 L.Ed.2d 1345), we have expressly held that the rule of the Sims case applies to local 'elective legislative bodies exercising general governmental powers'. (Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y.2d 94, 101, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 449, 209 N.E.2d 778, 782; see, generally, Weinstein, The Effect of the Federal Reappointment Decisions on Counties and Other Forms of...