County of Monroe v. City of Rochester

• Decision Date: 20 April 2007
• Docket Number: CA 06-02265.
• Citation: County of Monroe v. City of Rochester, 39 AD3d 1272, 834 N.Y.S.2d 817, 2007 NY Slip Op 3516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Parties: COUNTY OF MONROE, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

39 A.D.3d 1272

834 N.Y.S.2d 817

2007 NY Slip Op 03516

COUNTY OF MONROE, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

CA 06-02265.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.

Decided April 20, 2007.

Appeals from a judgment (denominated judgment and order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered July 6, 2006 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment declared, inter alia, that, in the event that plaintiff elects the sales tax intercept option codified in Tax Law § 1261 (f), the net collections distributed to defendants pursuant to Tax Law former § 1262-g would be reduced by the amount of sales tax revenue deducted by the State to cover plaintiff's Medicaid contribution.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum:

The appealing municipalities and school districts appeal from a judgment declaring, inter alia, that, in the event that plaintiff elects the sales tax intercept option codified in Tax Law § 1261 (f), the net collections distributed to defendants pursuant to Tax Law former § 1262-g would be reduced by the amount of sales tax revenue deducted by the State to cover plaintiff's Medicaid contribution. Here, however, the sales tax intercept option will not be effective unless and until plaintiff elects to adopt it by resolution (see L 2005, ch 58, part C, § 2 [b] [i]). We therefore do not address the merits of the complaint because it seeks an advisory opinion, and we conclude that the judgment must be reversed and the complaint dismissed. "The courts of New York do not issue advisory opinions for the fundamental reason that in this State `[t]he giving of such opinions is not the exercise of the judicial function'" (Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 354 [1988]; see Herzog Bros. Trucking v State Tax Commn., 72 NY2d 720,...