Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Cnty. of Nassau

• Decision Date: 10 September 2014
• Citation: Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 2014 NY Slip Op 6043, 120 A.D.3d 1166, 992 N.Y.S.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
• Parties: BALDWIN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

120 A.D.3d 1166

992 N.Y.S.2d 110

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 06043

BALDWIN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents,

v.COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Sept. 10, 2014.

Carnell T. Foskey, County Attorney Mineola, N.Y. (Dennis J. Saffran of counsel), for appellants.

Guercio & Guercio, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Barbara P. Aloe of counsel), for respondents Carle Place UFSD, East Williston UFSD, Farmingdale UFSD, Garden City UFSD, Hicksville UFSD, Island Trees UFSD, Massapequa UFSD, Plainview–Old Bethpage CSD, and West Hempstead UFSD, and Ingerman Smith, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Carrie Anne Tondo of counsel), for respondents Baldwin UFSD, Bellmore Merrick CHSD, Bd. of Coop Ed. Svcs. of Nassau, Freeport UFSD, Hewlett–Woodmere UFSD, Long Beach City SD, Mineola UFSD, Plainedge UFSD, Rockville Centre UFSD, and Uniondale UFSD (one brief filed).

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that Nassau County Ordinance No. 184–2010, as amended by Nassau County Ordinance No. 199–2010, is an unauthorized exercise of the defendants' lawmaking authority and is unconstitutional under the New York and United States Constitutions, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered October 23, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin them from enforcing Nassau County Ordinance No. 184–2010, as amended by Nassau County Ordinance No. 199–2010, and (2) an order of the same court entered July 2, 2012, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that Nassau County Ordinance No. 184–2010, as amended by Nassau County Ordinance No. 199–2010, is an authorized exercise of their lawmaking authority and is constitutional under the New York and United States Constitutions.

ORDERED that the order entered October 23, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered July 2, 2012, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendants' motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that Nassau County Ordinance No. 184–2010, as amended by Nassau County Ordinance No. 199–2010, is an authorized exercise of their lawmaking authority and is constitutional under the New York and United States Constitutions, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery; as so modified, the order entered July 2, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

These appeals stem from challenges to the validity and constitutionality of Nassau County Ordinance No. 184–2010, as amended by Nassau County Ordinance No. 199–2010 (hereinafter together the ordinance). The plaintiffs commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and action...