Lang v. Cohalan
| Decision Date | 30 March 1987 |
| Citation | 513 N.Y.S.2d 726,127 A.D.2d 17 |
| Parties | Martin LANG, etc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Peter F. COHALAN, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Block & Hamburger, Smithtown (Frederick Block, of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Co. Atty., Hauppauge (Theodore D. Sklar, Brian McCaffrey and Robert J. Cimino, of counsel), for Suffolk County respondents-appellants.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Richard G. Liskov and August L. Fietkau, of counsel), for State respondents-appellants.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and NIEHOFF, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
In 1984 the Southwest Sewer District of Suffolk County, which is located in the Town of Babylon and in the westerly portion of the Town of Islip, was suffering severe financial difficulties. In an effort to prevent a drastic increase in the real property taxes paid by the property owners in that district, the Suffolk County Legislature petitioned the New York State Legislature to permit them to increase the sales tax within the county. In response the State Legislature enacted Tax Law § 1210-A, which authorized the county to adopt a local law or resolution imposing an additional one-quarter of 1% county-wide sales tax and compensating-use tax for a five-year period. The net collections from this tax were to be deposited in a special fund, to be designated as an assessment stabilization reserve fund, and moneys from that fund were to be used only for the following purposes and in the following order of priority: (1) to an account for the Southwest Sewer District in such amounts as necessary to stabilize assessments in that sewer district in any given year; (2) to an account or accounts for any other sewer district established by the county in such amounts as are necessary to stabilize assessments in any such sewer district in any given year; and (3) for distribution to the towns and villages within the county which have established sewer districts or similar facilities in such amounts as necessary to stabilize assessments in any such sewer districts (Tax Law § 1210-A[b] ). A resolution imposing the increased sales and compensating-use tax, i.e., Suffolk County Resolution No. 823 of 1984, was approved in September of 1984.
The plaintiffs, the Town of Southampton, the Town Supervisor, and members of the town board, in both their official and individual capacities, subsequently commenced this action for a judgment declaring that Tax Law § 1210-A and Suffolk County Resolution No. 823 of 1984 are unconstitutional, null and void, on the grounds that (1) they impermissibly impose a general, county-wide tax for the benefit of a special district, (2) they constitute a denial of equal protection of the law, (3) they are impermissibly vague and uncertain, and (4) they were unlawfully enacted in violation of the Municipal Home Rule Law. The plaintiffs also sought a judgment permanently enjoining the State and the county from imposing and collecting this additional tax, and directing that all the moneys thus far collected and paid over to the Southwest Sewer District be returned and redeposited in a general county fund. By notice of motion dated November 8, 1985, the county defendants moved for an order dismissing the complaint as to the town and the plaintiffs acting in their official capacities on the basis that they lacked standing. The State defendants brought a cross motion for the same relief. The plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction and, alternatively, summary judgment. In their reply papers the defendants requested summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The court dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted by the "municipal" plaintiffs due to their lack of standing, but refused to grant summary judgment to either party, apparently because it was not convinced that there were no defenses to the causes of action, and it believed the defendants' applications for summary judgment to be nothing more than an afterthought. This appeal and cross appeal ensued.
County Law article 5-A authorizes counties to establish or extend county water, sewer, drainage or refuse districts composed of property or property owners who would be benefited by the establishment of such districts (County Law § 250, et seq.). The article provides for funding of these districts through either special ad valorem levies (County Law § 270), special benefit assessments (County Law § 271), or a system of user rates, charges and rentals (County Law § 266). According to the plaintiffs, this is the only way in which the Southwest Sewer District may be funded. Thus, argue the plaintiffs, Tax Law § 1210-A, which permits the funding of the sewer district through a county-wide tax, without regard for who is benefited by the district, is an improper delegation of the State's taxing power. In support of this contention the plaintiffs rely almost exclusively upon Gaynor v. Marohn, 268 N.Y. 417, 198 N.E. 13, and Riley v. County of Monroe, 55 A.D.2d 91, 389 N.Y.S.2d 689, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 144, 400 N.Y.S.2d 801, 371 N.E.2d 520. Those cases stand for the proposition that once the State Legislature has determined that a particular area will be benefited by the creation of, for example, a sewer district, the county cannot use county funds raised by taxing an area not included within that district for the sole benefit of that district (see, Riley v. County of Monroe, supra, at p. 148, 389 N.Y.S.2d 689; Gaynor v. Marohn, supra, 268 N.Y. at p. 428, 198 N.E. 13). However, the determination as to what area will be benefited is wholly within the discretion of the State Legislature, and the courts will not interfere with the State Legislature's determination unless it is palpably unjust (Gaynor v. Marohn, supra; see, Chesebro v. Los Angeles County Dist., 306 U.S. 459, 59 S.Ct. 622, 83 L.Ed. 921). At bar the State Legislature exercised its discretion and with the passage of Tax Law § 1210-A made a legislative pronouncement that the financial difficulties of the Southwest Sewer District, and other sewer districts throughout the county, are a county-wide concern, and that the stabilization of assessments and the continued operation of those districts would benefit the county as a whole. This determination clearly is not palpably unjust, as the papers filed in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment established that as a result of the stabilization of the assessments of the Southwest Sewer District in particular, and the other sewer districts located within Suffolk County in general, the treatment of scavenger waste emanating from locations throughout the county could be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yonkers Racing Corp. v. State
...Further, this delegation must be accompanied by proper guidelines set by the Legislature (see, Gautier v. Ditmar, supra; Lang v. Cohalan, 127 A.D.2d 17, 513 N.Y.S.2d 726). A review of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, under which the defendants assert the authority to impos......
-
Joan Marie D. v. Harold G.
...respect thereto may not serve as a basis for reversal (see, Cojal, Inc. v. Davis, 143 A.D.2d 799, 533 N.Y.S.2d 127; Lang v. Cohalan, 127 A.D.2d 17, 21, 513 N.Y.S.2d 726). In any event, we find that the Family Court properly considered the petitioner's application for an award of counsel and......
-
Karen BB, Matter of
...right has a constitutional basis (see, Matherson v. Marchello, 100 A.D.2d 233, 241 n. 4, 473 N.Y.S.2d 998; see also, Lang v. Cohalan, 127 A.D.2d 17, 21, 513 N.Y.S.2d 726, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 744, 519 N.Y.S.2d 966, 514 N.E.2d 386). The in-camera interview was held because information ......
-
Michael Anthony F., Matter of
...be addressed for the first time on appeal (see, Melahn v. Hearn, 60 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 471 N.Y.S.2d 47, 459 N.E.2d 156; Lang v. Cohalan, 127 A.D.2d 17, 21, 513 N.Y.S.2d 726, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 744, 519 N.Y.S.2d 966, 514 N.E.2d 386). The contentions lack merit in any event (see, Lehr v......