Greene v. Dunscomb
| Decision Date | 11 July 1939 |
| Citation | 281 N.Y. 261,22 N.E.2d 365 |
| Parties | GREENE v. DUNSCOMB et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Action by Francis W. Greene against Howard Dunscomb and others, as and constituting the Board of Trustees of the Village of Ossining, to determine under an agreed statement of fact whether the petitioner's compensation as acting police justice of the Village of Ossining should be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Village Law or under the village charter of the Village of Ossining. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, App.Div. , 13 N.Y.S.2d 288, granting judgment to the respondents, the petitioner appeals.
Judgment affirmed.Francis W. Greene, of Ossining, appellant, in person, and Lawrence T. Gross, Jr., of Tarrytown, for appellant.
John P. Powers, of Ossining, and E. J. Dimock and A. S. Davis, Jr., both of New York City, for respondents.
In January, 1939, the appellant, Francis W. Greene, was appointed Acting Police Justice of the village of Ossining. He requested the Board of Trustees of the village to adopt a resolution fixing his compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 184 of the Village Law (Consol.Laws, c. 64). The Board of Trustees formally refused on the ground that ‘Section 184 of the Village Law is not applicable to the Village of Ossining, and that the compensation of the Acting Police Justice of the Village is governed by Section 145 of the Village Charter (chapter 667 of the Laws of 1910, as amended) which provides a per diem method of compensation.’ The controversy was submitted to the Appellate Division upon an agreed statement of facts. It rendered judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees, holding that the provisions of the village charter applied.
Some of the villages of the State have been incorporated under general laws. Other villages have been incorporated ‘under and subject to a special law.’ The Village Law of the State (Laws of 1909, ch. 64) is a revision of the general village laws and such laws were expressly repealed by the statute. It was not intended to repeal by implication special laws. Its effect on existing corporations was defined by article XVI. Section 380 defined the ‘Effect of chapter on special villages,’ and provides: ‘A village incorporated under and subject to a special law, and each officer thereof, possesses all the powers and is subject to all the liabilities and responsibilities conferred or imposed upon a village incorporated under this chapter, or upon an officer thereof, not inconsistent with such special law.’ Section 381 defined the ‘Effect of revision on general villages.’ It provides that ‘the following villages are subject to the provisions of this chapter, as if incorporated thereunder,’ and then it specified in separate subdivisions villages incorporated under four general laws which were expressly repealed by the new statute.
It is plain that section 380 applies only to villages incorporated under special laws which are not repealed. There the provisions of the special law continue to govern the powers, liabilities and responsibilities of the villages incorporated under the special law and of officers of such villages, where such provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the general Village Law. The village of Ossining is not incorporated under a general law. Though incorporated in 1813 it received a new charter by special act of the Legislature in 1910, chapter 667 of the Laws of 1910. Section 381 applies only to villages specified therein, and as to those villages the provisions of the Village Law govern regardless of any provisions of the statute under which such villages were incorporated. As long as the village of Ossining was not included in the villages specified in that section, there could be no doubt that section 184 of the Village Law did not apply to it, for that section is inconsistent with section 145 of the statutory village charter.
The Legislature, by chapter 567 of the Laws of 1938, attempted to amend section 381 of the Village Law The appellant maintains that the effect of the amendatory statute is to make all the provisions of the Village Law apply to the village of Ossining and thus to repeal the village charter.
The amendatory statute, if valid, could by its terms apply only to the village of Ossining, for chapter 667 of the Laws of 1910 constitutes the statutory charter of Ossining, and no other village was or could be incorporated thereunder. The Constitution of the State provides that ‘no private or local bill, which may be passed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lupinski v. Village of Ilion
...here (Village Law, § 380; see Town of Cortlandt v. Village of Peekskill, 281 N.Y. 490, 494, 24 N.E.2d 139, 141; cf. Greene v. Dunscomb, 281 N.Y. 261, 22 N.E.2d 365; Rogers v. Village of Port Chester, 234 N.Y. 182, 137 N.E. 19; People ex rel. Goldowitz v. Karnes, 260 App.Div. 110, 20 N.Y.S.2......
-
Farrington v. Pinckney
...as one where 'A misshapen congeries of accidents has been made to masquerade under the semblance of class.' See, also, Greene v. Dunscomb, 281 N.Y. 261, 22 N.E.2d 365. The stage was thus set for Stapleton v. Pinckney, 293 N.Y. 330, 57 N.E.2d 38, 155 A.L.R. 783, decided in 1944, in which our......
-
Hotel Dorset Co. v. Trust for Cultural Resources of City of New York
...that the legislation is defective on all three grounds. Whether a statute is a general law is a judicial issue. See Greene v. Dunscomb, 281 N.Y. 261, 22 N.E.2d 365; Stapleton v. Pinckney, 293 N.Y. 330, 57 N.E.2d 38; Matter of Holland v. Bankson, 290 N.Y. 267, 49 N.E.2d The Court of Appeals ......
- Spector v. Allen