DeSantis v. Brown
| Decision Date | 20 October 1971 |
| Citation | 37 A.D.2d 865,325 N.Y.S.2d 60 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Ralph A. DeSANTIS, Individually and as City Manager of the City of Troy, Appellant, v. Thomas H. BROWN, as City Clerk of the City of Troy et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carl W. Engstrom, Troy, for appellant.
Frank N. Grasso, Schenectady, for respondents.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and REYNOLDS, GREENBLOTT, COOKE and SWEENEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 14, 1971 in Rensselaer County, in a proceeding under section 24 of the Municipal Home Rule Law which dismissed objections to petitions filed pursuant to section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law with the City Clerk of the City of Troy seeking proposed amendments to sections 3.07 and 7.40 of the City Charter of the City of Troy and the 1971 budget of the City of Troy, which amendments would increase the minimum salary to be paid to officers and employees of the Fire Bureau of the City of Troy, be submitted on referendum to the electors of the City of Troy at the next general election.
Appellant objected to the petitions on the grounds that the City Clerk failed within thirty days of the filing of each petition to transmit to the City Council his certificate of compliance or noncompliance as required by sections 24 and 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law; that the petitions did not contain the number of valid signatures required by section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law; and the proposed amendments set forth therein are violative of the Constitution of the State of New York, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the provisions of the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law, art. 14).
Section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law requires that objections to petitions filed thereunder be disposed of in the manner prescribed by section 24. And this latter section provides in pertinent part that written objections to a petition be filed with the supreme court or any justice thereof within thirty days after the filing of the petition. The lower court found, and it is not disputed on the present appeal, that appellant's objections were not filed within the requisite thirty day period. Consequently, we find, as did the court below, that appellant's objections to the petitions are untimely and, therefore, should be dismissed. (See, Election Law, § 330; Matter of Thompson v. Valentine, 297 N.Y. 105, 75 N.E.2d 262.) Although we express no view...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Bellmore Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Ed. of Union Free School Dist. No. 4
...rel. Bender v. Milliken, 185 N.Y. 35, 39, 77 N.E. 872, 873; cf. Thomson v. Tracy et al., 60 N.Y. 31, 37; Matter of DeSantis v. Brown, 37 A.D.2d 865, 325 N.Y.S.2d 60 (3d Dept. 10/20/71); Matter of Rushmore v. Lipson, 45 Misc.2d 487, 257 N.Y.S.2d 316, and that an Article 78 proceeding is an i......
-
Sinawski v. Cuevas
...947, affd. 114 A.D.2d 340, 493 N.Y.S.2d 859, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 162, 495 N.Y.S.2d 352, 485 N.E.2d 1017, but see, Matter of De Santis v. Brown, 37 A.D.2d 865, 325 N.Y.S.2d 60). In addition subdivision 8 section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law permits the Clerk to raise all objections anew whe......
-
Vill. of S. Blooming Grove v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel Bd. of Trs.
...[a] court on the ground that the statute or other enactment that will ultimately emerge would be invalid" (Matter of De Santis v. Brown, 37 A.D.2d 865, 325 N.Y.S.2d 60 [3d Dept 1971] ). Courts will not intervene to stay an election absent "[e]xceptional and extraordinary circumstances bf a ......
-
Fossella v. Dinkins
...(Municipal Home Rule Law § 24[1][a] ). The failure to file such an objection in a timely manner may be fatal (see, Matter of De Santis v. Brown, 37 A.D.2d 865, 325 N.Y.S.2d 60), but the statute contains no limitation of time within which a subsequent judicial proceeding must be commenced. A......