Henderson Taxpayers v. Town of Henderson

• Decision Date: 02 May 2001
• Docket Number: DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
• Citation: 723 N.Y.S.2d 786,283 AD2d 940
• Parties: (A.D. 4 Dept. 2001) HENDERSON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, WILLIAM WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ACTING PRESIDENT OF HENDERSON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, DR. MICHAEL P. OWEN, DR. DANIEL M. SWAN, BRENDA LEE, FRANCIS WALTER, ROBERT MC GRAW, ELAINE MC GRAW, THEODORE DENGLER, KAY DENGLER, ALAN BROWN, DOROTHY WALKER, SUSAN MANGLE AND WILLIAM MANGLE, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF HENDERSON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION,, v. TOWN OF HENDERSON, TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF HENDERSON, COMPRISED OF FRANK ROSS, JOY BROWN, CAROL HALL, FRANCIS CLARK AND ROBIN MORRIS, AND NAK K. SHIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A ASSOCIATION ISLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CA 00-01572. (Jefferson Co.) : FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 786

723 N.Y.S.2d 786 (A.D. 4 Dept. 2001)

HENDERSON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, WILLIAM WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ACTING PRESIDENT OF HENDERSON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, DR. MICHAEL P. OWEN, DR. DANIEL M. SWAN, BRENDA LEE, FRANCIS WALTER, ROBERT MC GRAW, ELAINE MC GRAW, THEODORE DENGLER, KAY DENGLER, ALAN BROWN, DOROTHY WALKER, SUSAN MANGLE AND WILLIAM MANGLE, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF HENDERSON TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TOWN OF HENDERSON, TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF HENDERSON, COMPRISED OF FRANK ROSS, JOY BROWN, CAROL HALL, FRANCIS CLARK AND ROBIN MORRIS, AND NAK K. SHIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A ASSOCIATION ISLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

CA 00-01572. (Jefferson Co.)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

May 2, 2001

John A. Cirano, for plaintiffs-appellant.

Robert D. Ventre for defendant-respondents Town of Henderson.

Scott F. Chatfield for defendant-respondents Nak Shim, individually and d/b/a Association Island Development Company.

PIGOTT, JR., P. J., PINE, HAYES, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.

Memorandum:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaration that Local Law No. 1 of 1999 (Local Law), enacted by defendant Town of Henderson (Town), is invalid. In enacting the Local Law, the Town changed the zoning of Association Island from an Island District to a Planned Development District. The Local Law provided that it was adopted pursuant to the Town's supersession authority under Municipal Home Rule Law and "to the extent that any procedural or substantive portions of [this] Law * * * are inconsistent therewith, the provisions of * * * the Town Law including, but not limited to, Section[s] 263, 264, 265 and 274-a thereof, are hereby superseded by the substantive and procedural aspects of this law".

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Town's cross motion for summary judgment declaring the Local Law valid and enforceable. Plaintiffs contend that the Local Law does not supersede Town Law § 263 and is in violation of section 263 because it does not comply with the specificity requirements of Municipal Home Rule Law § 22 (1). We disagree. Municipal Home Rule Law § 22 (1) provides that, in order to supersede a State statute or prior local law or ordinance, a local law "shall specify the chapter or local law or ordinance, number and year of enactment, section, subsection or subdivision, which it is intended to change or supersede". That statute further provides, however, that "the failure so to specify shall not affect the validity of such local law" (Municipal Home Rule Law § 22 [1]). So long as there is "substantial adherence to the statutory methods to evidence a legislative intent to amend or supersede", a local law will be upheld (Turnpike Woods, Inc. v Town of Stony Point, 70 N.Y.2d 735, 737; see, Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 N.Y.2d 423, 434-435). Here, there was substantial adherence to the statutory methods because the Local Law expressly states that it was intended to supersede Town Law § 263. Thus, "there can be no reasonable doubt" that the Local Law was intended to supersede that statute (Miller v City of Albany, 278 A.D.2d 647). In view...