Bugeja v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 24 February 1966 |
| Citation | 268 N.Y.S.2d 564,17 N.Y.2d 606,215 N.E.2d 684 |
| Parties | , 215 N.E.2d 684 Charles BUGEJA, Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, and others etc., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 24 A.D.2d 151, 266 N.Y.S.2d 80.
Rubinton, Coleman & Ostrow, Brooklyn (Theodore D. Ostrow, Brooklyn, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Norman Redlich and Pauline K. Berger, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
The plaintiff brought action against the City of New York and others to have Chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965, Administrative Code, § C51--10.0, declared invalid. Chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965 empowers the mayor of the City of New York to authorize the issuance of serial bonds in the maximum principal amount of $255,800,000 in order to provide for payment of its pension or retirement liabilities during the fiscal year of 1965. Chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965 declares that 'The maximum period of probable usefulness of the objects or purposes of such bonds shall be five years.' The plaintiff contended that Chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965 is unconstitutional because enacted without a home rule request in accordance with the Constitution, art. 9, § 2, and because a factual issue exists in support of his claim that the bond sale will cause the City of New York to exceed its constitutional debt limitation under Const. art. 8, § 4(c).
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Frank J. Pino, J., entered an order and judgment granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and declaring Chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965 constitutional, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Division, Hopkins, J., held that Chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965 is constitutional with respect to its object and its means, and that the plaintiff failed at Special Term to submit proof of any evidentiary fact which tended to contravene the prima facie validity of the net debt margin figure contained in the Comptroller's verified debt statement submitted by the defendants. Beldock, P.J., and Benjamin, J., dissented.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, without costs.
All concur except VAN VOORHIS, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and to declare chapter 440 of the Laws of 1965 unconstitutional as being in violation of section 2 of article VIII of the New York State Constitution for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orange County v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
...Wagner, 4 N.Y.2d 575, 176 N.Y.S.2d 616, 152 N.E.2d 54; Bugeja v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 151, 266 N.Y.S.2d 80, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 606, 268 N.Y.S.2d 564, 215 N.E.2d 684). In its Eighth Cause of Action the County alleges that the Stewart Airport Acts, 'to the extent that they delegate to MTA......
-
Capelle v. Makowski
...City of Long Beach, 282 N.Y. 382, 26 N.E.2d 945, and Bugeja v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 151, 266 N.Y.S.2d 80, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 606, 268 N.Y.S.2d 564, 215 N.E.2d 684. We need only note that the ordinance before us expires on July 1, We reach a similar conclusion with regard to plaintiffs' ......
-
Marcus v. Baron
...N.Y.2d 1, 6-7, 347 N.Y.S.2d 161, 300 N.E.2d 704; Bugeja v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 151, 152, 266 N.Y.S.2d 80, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 606, 268 N.Y.S.2d 564, 215 N.E.2d 684; Town of Junius v. Flacke, 71 A.D.2d 423, 427, 423 N.Y.S.2d 85; Schnapp v. Lefkowitz, 101 Misc.2d 1075, 422 N.Y.S.2d In sho......
-
Wambat Realty Corp. v. State
...cover New York City's pension and retirement liabilities (24 A.D.2d 151, 152, 266 N.Y.S.2d 80, 81 (Hopkins, J.), affd. 17 N.Y.2d 606, 268 N.Y.S.2d 564, 215 N.E.2d 684). And, more recently, notwithstanding its encroachment upon village zoning powers, the Urban Development Corporation statute......