Leone v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 29 September 1959
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 191 N.Y.S.2d 334,21 Misc.2d 750
• Parties: Application of George LEONE Petitioner, for an Order under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, v. Glenn L. HUNTER and others, as members of, and constituting the Board of Education of Fredonia Central School District, Fredonia, State of New York, (otherwise designated as Central School District, of the Towns of Pomfret, Arkwright, Sheridan, Portland and Dunkirk) and others, to review the validity of the act of the School District in adopting the Budget for 1959- 1960.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 334

191 N.Y.S.2d 334

21 Misc.2d 750

Application of George LEONE Petitioner, for an Order under

Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, v. Glenn L. HUNTER and others, as members of, and constituting

the Board of Education of Fredonia Central School District,

Fredonia, State of New York, (otherwise designated as

Central School District No. 1, of the Towns of Pomfret,

Arkwright, Sheridan, Portland and Dunkirk) and others, to

review the validity of the act of the School District in

adopting the Budget for 1959- 1960.

Supreme Court, Erie County.

Sept. 29, 1959.

Robert L. Manuele and Kenneth W. Glines, Fredonia (Hugh McM.Russ, Buffalo, of counsel), for petitioner.

A. Bruce Manley, Fredonia, for respondent.

REID S. MOULE, Justice.

This is a proceeding brought under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for an order to be directed against the members of the Board of Education of the Fredonia Central School District, Fredonia, New York, and others to review the validity of the acts of the Central School District in adopting the budget for the school year 1959-1960.

The petitioner questions two items in the 1959-1960 budget of the Central School District. The first is a balance of $23,171.36 in the treasury of Union Free School District No. 8, Town of Pomfret which was turned over to the Central School District in July 1959. The petitioner seeks to have this money applied on the bond obligations of the Union Free School District No. 8. The second item is a planned balance of $75,000 on July 1, 1960, the close of the school year.

An examination of the petition and answer showed that triable issues of fact were presented, but these issues are now resolved but a stipulation dated September 14, 1959, signed by the attorneys for the parties in which the allegations of the petition, other than those presenting questions of law, are admitted.

The petitioner alleges that he is now and was during the years 1958-1959 the owner of several pieces of real property, described, in the Village of Fredonia and that he is subject to school taxes assessed against these properties by the Union Free School District No. 8, a school district co-terminous with the Village of Fredonia; that in January 1959 the new Fredonia Central School District was organized and the respondents, except one, were elected members of the Board of Education; that this latter district includes the Union Free School District No. 8 and additional areas and that the petitioner is a voter in the Fredonia Central School District.

The petitioner further alleges that prior to the first annual meeting of the Fredonia Central School District on July 14, 1959, the Union Free School District held its last district meeting on June 30, 1959; that at this meeting a resolution was presented to the voters of the Union Free School District--'which proposed that any unexpended balance remaining in the treasury of the old Union Free School District No. 8, at the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 1959) be turned over to Fredonia Central School District'; that the resolution was passed and that the balance remaining in the treasury of the Union Free School District which was turned over to the Fredonia Central School District during July 1959, totalled $23,171.36. The court understands that this amount is included in the figures of the budget (p. 3) under 'Estimated Income 1959-1960.'

At the time the sum of $23,171.36 was turned over to the Fredonia Central School District the Union Free School District had an outstanding bonded indebtedness of $755,000. There was due and payable on this indebtedness as principal and interest the sum of $53,070 during the school year 1959-1960. The Union Free School is deemed in law to continue to exist for the purpose of paying all of its debts, including obligations issued prior to the organization of the Central School District (Education Law, § 1804, subd. 5).

Before considering the budget item questions it is necessary to determine this court's jurisdiction which is questioned by the respondents who maintain that since this is a proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the Court is deprived of jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 1285. This section provides that the procedure under this article shall not be available to review a determination--'4. Where it can be adequately reviewed by an appeal to a court or to some other body or officer.' The respondents claim that the petitioner could have appealed his grievances alleged in his petition to the Commissioner of Education under sections 306, 310, 2024 and 2037 of the Education Law.

Though the Commissioner of Education has exclusive jurisdiction to review certain grievances and matters he does not have such exclusive jurisdiction in the construction of a statute or in matters involving a tax levy or grievances of parties not connected with the Department of Education. This is established by numerous decisions: O'Connor v. Emerson, 196 App.Div. 807, 188 N.Y.S. 236, affirmed 232 N.Y. 561, 134 N.E. 572; Cantor v. Board of Education, Union Free School Dist. No. 28 Town of Hempstead, 262 App.Div. 861, 29 N.Y.S.2d 714; Golden v. Hamilton, 171 Misc. 1039, 15 N.Y.S.2d 315; Miller v. Gould, 121 Misc. 270, 272, 200 N.Y.S. 884, 885; Austin v. Board of Trustees of School District No. 5, of Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, 68 Misc. 538, 540, 125 N.Y.S. 222, 223; Corbett v. Union Free School Dist. No. 21, Hempstead, N. Y., Sup., 102 N.Y.S.2d 924, 925; Anderson v. Board of Ed., of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead, Sup., 135 N.Y.S.2d 189.

In O'Connor v. Emerson, supra, the court said, 196 App.Div. at page 810, 188 N.Y.S. at page 238:

'The authority and jurisdiction of the commissioner of education are exclusive in all matters relating to the supervision and control of the public school system, the discipline of the schools and the management of the school property, and the authority and discretionary acts on the part of officers or agencies of education. (Cases cited.)

'But where the right of a party depends upon the interpretation of a statute and it is claimed that a school board or official has proceeded to act in violation of an express statute, and thereby the party complaining is being deprived of valuable rights, the courts will not be ousted of jurisdiction to determine the matter, notwithstanding another method of settling the controversy has been provided.' (Cases cited.)

In Matter of Cantor v. Board of Education, Union Free School Dist. No. 28 Town of Hempstead, supra, 262 App.Div. 861, 29 N.Y.S.2d 714, the court affirmed the order granted in a proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act brought to review the adoption of a budget by a school district which declared the action of the school district void and set aside the budget and directed that a special meeting be called for the purpose of adopting a budget.

In Golden v. Hamilton, supra, 171 Misc. 1039, 15 N.Y.S.2d 315, the petitioner in a proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act challenged the validity of a school district budget. The respondents, as in the instant case, contended that the Commissioner of Education had sole jurisdiction to review the action taken at the school meeting and that the right to appeal to the Commissioner barred the proceeding under the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 1285 of the Civil Practice Act. The court after discussing the decisions rejected this contention and said (171 Misc. at page 1041, 15 N.Y.S.2d at page 317):

'It is my conclusion that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding, and the objections raised to the jurisdiction must be dismissed.'

For similar decisions see: Eaton v. Allen, 1 Misc.2d 496, 149 N.Y.S.2d 423; Kursch v. Board of Education, Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of North Hempstead, 13 Misc.2d 252, 253, 176 N.Y.S.2d 704, 705.

We now return to the $23,171.36 item. Since there is no claim that the balance in the treasury of the Union Free School District was derived from the sale of property owned by the District, which if true would require that the proceeds of such sale or sales be used to discharge any outstanding indebtedness of the District then due or which might thereafter become due (Education Law, § 1804, subd. 6) we turn to the pertinent provisions of subdivision 6 which in part reads:

'Any balance of funds remaining in the treasury of the several districts included within the central school district on July first next following the date of the establishment of such central school district, after paying all outstanding obligations then due and payable, shall be turned over to the treasurer of the central school district within thirty days thereafter. That portion of the balance representing tax money in each district shall be apportioned among the taxpayers of the existing district as they appear on the last completed town or city assessment roll prior to July first of the first year the central school board levies a tax, unless the voters of an existing district by a majority vote of those present and voting at a special school district meeting called for the purpose, prior to August first following the date of the organization of the central school district, shall vote to turn over all the balance to the central district to be used for the benefit of the central district.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Clearly the above quoted statute authorizes a school district incorporated into a central school district to transfer to that school district any balance of funds remaining in its treasury on July first following the date of the establishment of the central school district when a...