Knapp v. Fasbender
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Citation | 134 N.E.2d 482,151 N.Y.S.2d 668,1 N.Y.2d 212 |
| Parties | , 134 N.E.2d 482 Arthur E. KNAPP et al., Appellants, v. Walter FASBENDER, as Bupervisor of the Town of Huntington et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Albert M. Levert, Northport, for appellants.
Louis Cohen, Jamaica and George M. Blaesi, Huntington, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment declaring valid a proposition adopted on May 15, 1951, at a special town meeting of Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, reading as follows:
'Proposition Number One
'Shall the action of the Supervisor, Justice of the Peace and Town Clerk of the Town of Huntington in acquiring for the town in the name of the Board of Trustees the 22 acre beach and park at Centerport, the various lots comprising the recreation fields in Greenlawn, East Northport and Huntington Station, the several parking lots in Huntington Village, Huntington Station and East Northport and the Gerard Street Extension; and in improving and in improving and the same; and in contracting with the U. S. Dredging Corp. for the dredging of Huntington's harbors and bays and using the revenues therefrom for the foregoing purposes, be approved?'
The proposition dealt with three projects: the acquisition of the beach property at Centerport, the making of lease-purchase agreements for the acquirement of parking areas and recreation fields in various parts of the town, an contracts made with the U. S. Dredging Corp. for the sale and disposal of gravel and sand and for the dredging of Huntington Bay and Harbor. In the Town of Huntington, there are two boards, the town board and the board of trustees. The town clerk is not a member of the town board. The supervisor, justices of the peace and the town clerk constitute the board of trustees of the Town of Huntington. The two boards are separate and distinct, maintaining separate books and records. All of these transactions were entered into in the name of the board of trustees of the Town of Huntington.
The complaint alleges that all the acts, transactions and contracts mentioned in Proposition No. 1 were the acts of the board of trustees of the Town of Huntington made and performed, under the claims, that the board of trustees is separate and apart from the town board, and that the board of trustees is not controlled by the laws, rules and regulations affecting the town board and that such transactions do not require prior authorization. The plaintiffs sought an adjudication and judgment declaring invalid and void (1) a resolution adopted by the town board at a special meeting directing the holding of a special election to vote on Proposition No. 1, and (2) the proposition as approved at the special election.
The preliminary question before us then is to decide whether the board of trustees truly possessed the power to enter into such contracts free from the restraints of the provisions of the Town Law, Consol.Laws, c. 62, which requires a resolution of the town board and the approval of the qualified electors to engage in certain town improvements. If the answer is in the affirmative, the issue of the validity of Proposition No. 1 need not be considered. For if these contracts were proprietary in nature they did not require prior authorization or subsequent approval of the electors as wil be discussed hereafter. In that event the adoption of the resolution by the town board was needless. But if any of the circumstances surrounding the making or performing of the contracts as distinguished from the right to enter into the contracts, were illegal or corrupt, such transgressions may be redressed in a different action or proceeding.
On the application for leave to appeal and on the appeal, references were made to chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 entitled 'An Act to ratify and confirm the title of the trustees of the town of Huntington, Suffolk county, in and to certain lands therein and to ratify and confirm the acts of its board of trustees, and defining the powers and duties of such board'. We decided that we might be obliged to apply chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 in whatever manner it related to the present controversy. We, therefore, ordered a reargument to ascertain whether chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 renders the town board resolution and Proposition No. 1 academic, 308 N.Y. 1021, 127 N.E.2d 863. There is no real controversy over the proposition if the statute makes prior authorization or ratification by a town election unnecessary.
Chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 was enacted after this action was tried and the proposition approved by the voters. The memorandum submitted in support of the bill, letters from the Comptroller and Attorney-General, and communications in opposition and in support of the proposed legislation all contained in the files of the Legislature, made it clear to the Legislature and the Governor that the purpose of the legislation was to define, clarify, confirm and ratify the powers of this board of trustees for the reason that the rights of the trustees to exercise certain powers were being challenged in current controversies, including this very action. With the intent and purpose of the bill completely revealed, the Legislature passed it and the Governor approved it. Therefore, chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 is applicable to the present issue.
Moreover, we are required to decide on the basis of the law as it exists at the time of our decision, Tartaglia v. McLaughlin, 297 N.Y. 419, 79 N.E.2d 809; People ex rel. Clark v. Gilchrist, 243 N.Y. 173, 180, 153 N.E. 39, 40, hence chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 is before us. This statute reads as follows:
'An Act to ratify and confirm the title of the trustees of the town of Huntington, Suffolk county, in and to certain lands therein and to ratify and confirm the acts of its board of trustees, and defining the powers and duties of such board
'Section 1. Legal title is hereby ratified and confirmed in the Board of Trustees of the Town of Huntington as successor to the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Huntington under Chapter 492 of the laws of 1872 as amended by Chapter 101 of the Laws of 1929, to all lands described in the Governor Nicholls Patent recorded in Book No. 1 of Patents at Page 73, in the Governor Dongan Patent recorded in Book No. 6 of Patents at Page 338 and in the Governor Fletcher Patent recorded in Book No. 6 of Patents at Page 493, all in the office of the Secretary of State.
' § 2. The powers to acquire, hold, manage, lease, control, convey, grant and dispose of property both real and personal for the benefit of the residents and taxpayers of the Town of Huntington heretofore exercised by said Board of Trustees of the town of Huntington and/or its predecessors, are hereby ratified and confirmed in said Board of Trustees and said Board of Trustees is hereby authorized and empowered to continue to hold, manage, lease, convey, grant, invest and reinvest such property and funds as Trustee for the residents and taxpayers of the Town of Huntington, and in furtherance of its said trust to acquire in its own name by gift, purchase or lease and to maintain and improve property of any nature either real or personal, for the benefit of the residents and taxpayers of the Town of Huntington.
' § 3. All acts heretofore taken by said Board of Trustees in the exercise of the aforesaid powers are hereby legalized and confirmed and made effectual and valid as the official acts of said Board of Trustees.
' § 4. Except as therein otherwise specifically provided, the provisions of the town law, shall not apply to the acts of said Board of Trustees, and such acts shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 79 of the Civil Practice Act of the State of New York. Such trust is hereby declared to be an express trust within the meaning of Section 1307 of the Civil Practice Act.
' § 5. If any clause, sentence, paragraph or part of this enactment or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder, and the application thereof to other persons or circumstances, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and to the person or circumstances involved. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that this enactment would have been adopted had such invalid provisions not been included therein.
The plaintiffs contend first, that the board of trustees has arrogated to itself and usurped the powers of the town board, second, that the acts, whether considered acts of the trustees or town board, must be approved at town elections, and third, chapter 816 of the Laws of 1952 is unconstitutional and void.
In order to determine the validity of these challenges, it is appropriate to turn to an examination of the powers and duties of the town trustees as historically conceived, altered and exercised. In this manner we will be able to determine whether they exceeded their normal limitations in entering into the aforementioned agreements. Also, we will be aided in determining the scope of the 1952 enactment and whether it contains any innovations which are repugnant constitutionally or otherwise.
By three separate grants of Colonial Governors of New York, certain uplands and lands under Huntington Harbor and Huntington Bay were given to the trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of the Town of Huntington, who were thereby created a corporate body. They were given the express powers necessary to manage and preserve the trust estate. These grants were confirmed in the first Constitution of the new State of New York and in all subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaquith v. Simon
...N.E.2d 801, 805; Easley v. New York State Thruway Auth., 1 N.Y.2d 374, 379, 153 N.Y.S. 28, 135 N.E.2d 572; Knapp v. Fasbender, 1 N.Y.2d 212, 232-233, 151 N.Y.S.2d 668, 134 N.E.2d 482; Farrington v. Pinckney, 1 N.Y.2d 74, 78, 150 N.Y.S.2d 585, 589, 133 N.E.2d 817, 821; Matter of Ahern v. Sou......
-
People v. McQueen
...as supporting so far-reaching a proposition. Matter of Tartaglia v. McLaughlin, 297 N.Y. 419, 79 N.E.2d 809; Knapp v. Fasbender, 1 N.Y.2d 212, 151 N.Y.S.2d 668, 134 N.E.2d 482; and Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New York, 295 N.Y. 527, 68 N.E.2d 593, all involve statutes enacted between the tri......
-
People v. Kaiser
... ... 3 (See Knapp ... Page 811 ... v. Fasbender, 1 N.Y.2d 212, 151 N.Y.S.2d 668, 134 N.E.2d 482; Matter of Tartaglia v. McLaughlin, 297 N.Y. 419, 79 N.E.2d 809; ... ...
-
People ex rel. Julio v. Walters
...at the time their decisions are rendered (People v. Loria, 10 N.Y.2d 368, 223 N.Y.S.2d 462, 179 N.E.2d 478; Knapp v. Fasbender, 1 N.Y.2d 212, 243, 151 N.Y.S.2d 668, 134 N.E.2d 482; Matter of Tartaglia v. McLaughlin, 297 N.Y. 419, 424, 79 N.E.2d 809). Although there has been a traditional po......