Long Island Pine Barrens Soc'y, Inc. v. Cnty. of Suffolk
| Decision Date | 12 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | 2012-08838 |
| Citation | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07633,996 N.Y.S.2d 162,122 A.D.3d 688 |
| Parties | LONG ISLAND PINE BARRENS SOCIETY, INC., et al., appellants, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gordon & Juengst, P.C., Shoreham, N.Y. (Jennifer A. Juengst of counsel), for appellants Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc., and Richard Amper, and Regina Seltzer, Bellport, N.Y., for appellants Long Island Environmental Voters Forum, Inc., Thomas Casey, and Robert McGrath (one brief filed).
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Leonard G. Kapsalis of counsel), for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Resolution 625–2011 of the County Legislature of the County of Suffolk, enacted as Local Law No. 44–2011 of the County of Suffolk, is illegal, null, and void on the ground that it was adopted in the absence of approval pursuant to a public referendum in accordance with the Suffolk County Charter, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated July 19, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment declaring that Resolution 625–2011 of the County Legislature of the County of Suffolk, enacted as Local Law No. 44–2011 of the County of Suffolk, is illegal, , and void, and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing is denied, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that Resolution 625–2011 of the County Legislature of the County of Suffolk, enacted as Local Law No. 44–2011 of the County of Suffolk, is illegal, null, and void is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that Resolution 625–2011 of the County Legislature of the County of Suffolk, enacted as Local Law No. 44–2011 of the County of Suffolk, is illegal, , and void.
In 1987, Suffolk County amended the Suffolk County Charter to add the current article XII, known popularly as the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (hereinafter the DWPP). The overall goal of the DWPP is to protect the County's drinking water supply and land in the Long Island Pine Barrens region of the County, which contains a significant drinking water aquifer. The various provisions of the DWPP are designed to permanently protect Pine Barrens acreage in the deep water recharge area of the County, to support water quality protection programs, and to provide for a rational program of county tax stabilization (see Local Law No. 40–1987 of County of Suffolk). Suffolk County enacted the DWPP by an affirmative public referendum (see Local Law No. 40–1987 of County of Suffolk, §§ 3, 6).
The DWPP, codified as article XII of the Suffolk County Charter, was subsequently amended, and its term extended, on several occasions. Each amendment until 2011 was approved by an affirmative public referendum.
Significantly, a 1993 amendment to the Suffolk County Charter included a provision in the DWPP requiring that, from 1993 forward, the DWPP was only to be amended or repealed after approval by a public referendum (see Local Law No. 26–1993 of County of Suffolk). Specifically, the 1993 amendment provided that “[a]fter approval by the electorate, this law, as well as any other law converted into a mandatory referendum pursuant to § 34(4) of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law, by a vote of the County Legislature, may only be amended, modified, repealed or altered by enactment of an appropriate Charter law subject to mandatory referendum in accordance with prevailing law” (Local Law No. 26–1993 of the County of Suffolk). This same provision appeared in each of the subsequent amendments to the DWPP (see Local Law No. 35–1999 of County of Suffolk; Local Law No. 24–2007 of County of Suffolk), until a 2011 amendment to the DWPP omitted the clause (see Resolution 625–2011 of the County Legislature of the County of Suffolk, enacted as Local Law No. 44–2011 of County of Suffolk).
The 2011 amendment (hereinafter the Amendment), which is challenged by the plaintiffs here, was adopted by the County Legislature, and signed by the County Executive, but was never submitted to the electorate for a referendum. Significantly, the Amendment authorized certain funds that had previously been dedicated for purposes set forth in the DWPP to be used instead to retire bonded indebtedness or for a retirement contribution reserve fund unrelated to the protection of the Pine Barrens or the drinking water supply in the County. Thus, the Amendment redirected dedicated DWPP funds to general budgetary purposes.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the County, the County Legislature, and the County Executive seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the Amendment—including any allocation of funds arising out of the application of the formula set forth therein—is illegal, null, and void. They alleged that the County violated the Suffolk County Charter by enacting the Amendment without approval pursuant to a public referendum.
After the defendants filed their answer, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Suffolk County Charter expressly prohibits the County Legislature and the County Executive from amending the DWPP without a public referendum and, thus, that the Amendment is illegal, null, and void. The defendants opposed the plaintiffs' motion, and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, declaring that the amendment constituted a valid exercise of local legislative authority. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the action, and that, in any event, the Supreme Court was obligated to deny the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to attach copies of the pleadings to the motion. As to the merits, the defendants argued that the provision in the Suffolk County Charter requiring a public referendum to amend the DWPP is inconsistent with State law and, thus, the County Legislature had the authority to enact the challenged amendment without submitting it to a public referendum.
The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to submit copies of the pleadings with their moving papers, and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing. The plaintiffs appeal.
The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. An action commenced by natural persons pursuant to General Municipal Law § 51 “may take the form of [an] action for a declaratory judgment” (Matter of Korn v. Gulotta, 72 N.Y.2d 363, 371, 534 N.Y.S.2d 108, 530 N.E.2d 816 ; see Godfrey v. Spano, 57 A.D.3d 941, 942, 871 N.Y.S.2d 296, affd. 13 N.Y.3d 358, 892 N.Y.S.2d 272, 920 N.E.2d 328 ). To have standing based upon their status as taxpayers, the individual plaintiffs were required to allege that the challenged act constituted a waste of or injury to public funds or, alternatively, that the challenged act was both illegal and “imperil[ed] the public interests or [was] calculated to work public injury or produce some public mischief” (Matter of Korn v. Gulotta, 72 N.Y.2d at 372, 534 N.Y.S.2d 108, 530 N.E.2d 816 ; see Godfrey v. Spano, 57 A.D.3d at 942, 871 N.Y.S.2d 296 ). Here, the plaintiffs alleged, in detail, that the defendants violated the Suffolk County Charter by enacting the Amendment in the absence of approval pursuant to a public referendum, and that this enactment threatened public funds expressly dedicated to protecting the drinking water supply in the County and lands in the Pine Barrens. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the enactment of the challenged amendment without a public referendum is illegal insofar as it violates the Suffolk County Charter, and that this enactment imperiled the public interest or was calculated to work public injury or produce some public mischief (see Matter of Korn v. Gulotta, 72 N.Y.2d at 372, 534 N.Y.S.2d 108, 530 N.E.2d 816 ; cf. Mesivta of Forest Hills Inst., Inc. v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 1014, 1016, 462 N.Y.S.2d 433, 448 N.E.2d 1344 ; Godfrey v. Spano, 57 A.D.3d at 942–943, 871 N.Y.S.2d 296 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Feiner, 13 A.D.3d 519, 521, 787 N.Y.S.2d 357 ). Thus, the individual plaintiffs had standing to maintain this action as taxpayers of the County (see Matter of Korn v. Gulotta, 72 N.Y.2d at 372, 534 N.Y.S.2d 108, 530 N.E.2d 816 ). Further, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing in their representative capacities to maintain this action on behalf of their respective members (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 211, 778 N.Y.S.2d 123, 810 N.E.2d 405 ; Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 775, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 ; cf. Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn., 113 A.D.3d 853, 856, 980 N.Y.S.2d 468 ).
Although the Supreme Court denied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial