Block v. Sprague
| Decision Date | 06 March 1941 |
| Parties | BLOCK v. SPRAGUE et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of Herman Block, petitioner, for a mandamus order against J. Russel Sprague, as county executive of Nassau County, respondent, for an injunction order against A. Holly Patterson, and others, constituting the Nassau County Board of Supervisors to enjoin them from proceeding with a hearing on the budget. The application was denied, Misc. , 24 N.Y.S.2d 245, and Herman Block appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. From an order of the Appellate Division, 260 App.Div. 1021, 24 N.Y.S.2d 1010, affirming the order of the Special Term, Herman Block appeals by permission.
Order reversed, and relief prayed for granted. Herman Block and Edwin V. Hellawell, both of New York City, for appellant.
James L. Dowsey, Co. Atty., of Mineola (John J. Knob, of Long Beach, of counsel), for respondents.
This appeal presents the question whether under the County Government Law of Nassau County, L.1936, ch. 879 and amendments thereunder, the County Executive of Nassau County should file with the Board of Supervisors an itemized or ‘line by line’ proposed budget for the year 1941.
The parties differ in their interpretation of this law and the question must be determined by an examination of its several provisions.
Article III, sections 301-308, Laws 1937, c. 618, ss 4-11 are comprised within the heading ‘Budget.’ Not later than the first day of October in each year all department heads must furnish to the County Executive estimates for the following fiscal year of the receipts and disbursements of their respective departments. s 301. Not later than the second Monday in November the County Executive must submit to the Board of Supervisors of the county a proposed budget of receipts and expenditures for the ensuing year. s 302. With the proposed budget, the County Executive is required to submit a budget message explaining the main features of the budget. The Executive shall also submit a draft of an ordinance intended to authorize the proposed appropriation expenditures. s 303. Thereafter, the Board of Supervisors shall, within ten days after the filing of the budget, give notice of a public hearing in the manner provided by the statute. At such hearing any personmay be heard for or against the estimates as presented by the County Executive or any item thereof. s 304. At the conclusion of such hearing, the Board of Supervisors ‘may strike out or reduce any item of appropriation in the county budget * * *.’ Before inserting ‘any additional item or increasing any item of appropriation,’ the Board of Supervisors must give notice in the manner provided by the statute, of the nature of he proposed changes, together with notice of a public hearing thereon. After such hearing, the Board of Supervisors may insert the additional item or items and make the increase or increases indicated by the public notice or to a lesser amount. The County Executive may veto any such addition or increase which shall not be passed over his veto by less than a two-thirds vote. s 305.
The appellant, a taxpayer of Nassau county, has challenged the sufficiency of the budget upon the ground that the budget proposed by the County Executive contains in general for each branch of the service only four lump sum items, namely (1) for personal service, (2) for materials and supplies, (3) for expenses (contractual expenses), and (4) for capital outlays. The Special Term held that this was a compliance with the provisions of the Nassau County Government Law. This has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division and we have granted leave to appeal.
(1) A consideration of all the provisions relating to the budget leads us to the conclusion that this proposed budget must contain line by line items and may not consist of lump sums where it is practical to state the items. After the prescribed public hearing upon the budget, the Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Korn v. Gulotta
...41 N.Y.2d 498, 393 N.Y.S.2d 955, 362 N.E.2d 587, rearg. denied 42 N.Y.2d 910, 397 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 366 N.E.2d 1365; Matter of Block v. Sprague, 285 N.Y. 69, 32 N.E.2d 796; People v. Tremaine, 281 N.Y. 1, 21 N.E.2d 891, supra Nor does City of Beacon v. County of Dutchess, 285 App.Div. 1050, 13......
-
Sweeney v. Farrington
...of waste, and warrant a denial of injunctive relief. Cf. Coggeshall v. Hennessey, 279 N.Y. 438, 18 N.E.2d 652; Matter of Block v. Sprague, 285 N.Y. 69, 32 N.E.2d 796; People v. Tremaine, 281 N.Y. 1, 21 N.E.2d 891; Conway v. Sahm, 202 Misc. 519, 109 N.Y.S.2d The second question raised by the......
-
Cioci v. Mondello, 1
...is to be reduced or is to be laid off or determine what equipment, materials or supplies are not to be provided. Matter of Block v. Sprague, 285 N.Y. 69, 32 N.E.2d 796 (1941) is not to the contrary. There the question was whether Nassau County could approve a lump sum budget that was not it......
-
Posner v. Rockefeller
...explicit to disclose with reasonable clarity the purposes for which the money is proposed to be expended.' See also Matter of Block v. Sprague, 285 N.Y. 69, 32 N.E.2d 796, where the Court of Appeals held, in reference to a budget submitted by the county executive of Nassau County, the '* * ......