Mehiel v. County Bd. of Legislators of County of Westchester
| Decision Date | 01 July 1991 |
| Citation | 571 N.Y.S.2d 808,175 A.D.2d 109 |
| Parties | Dennis MEHIEL, etc., et al., Respondents, v. The COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS OF THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Marilyn J. Slaatten, County Atty., Mount Kisco, (Henry Mark Holzer and Steven Barshov, of counsel), for appellants.
Alan D. Scheinkman, White Plains (Richard L. Weingarten and Mark Weingarten, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and KUNZEMAN, SULLIVAN, LAWRENCE and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Local Laws, 1991, No. 8 of the County of Westchester is invalid insofar as it was to take effect immediately upon enactment, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered June 20, 1991, which, inter alia, declared that Local Laws, 1991, No. 8 of the County of Westchester is invalid insofar as it was to take effect immediately upon enactment.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and it is declared that Local Laws, 1991, No. 8 of the County of Westchester is valid insofar as it was to take effect immediately upon enactment.
Local Laws, 1991, No. 8 of the County of Westchester generally provides for the reapportionment of the legislative districts of the Westchester County Legislature. The Supreme Court, substantially relying on Municipal Home Rule Law § 10, held that the redistricting plan could not take effect until approved by the electorate in a mandatory public referendum.
We find that the Supreme Court's reliance on Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(a)(13)(a) is misplaced. Westchester County operates under a charter form of government and its reapportionment plans are adopted pursuant to its charter, not Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(a)(13)(a). Since the County Board of Legislators of the County of Westchester did not adopt a plan of apportionment pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(a)(13)(a), it is not controlling here (see, Matter of Angell v. Tompkins County Bd. of Representatives, 90 A.D.2d 896, 897, 456 N.Y.S.2d 510; 1981 Opns Atty Gen No 81-105 at 255). Rather, the provisions that are controlling herein are set forth in Municipal Home Rule Law § 34(4) and Westchester County Administrative Code § 209.161 ().
The Municipal Home Rule Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molinari v. Bloomberg
...section 15(1) of the City Home Rule Law and so did not require a referendum. See id. at 251. In Mehiel v. County Board of Legislators, 175 A.D.2d 109, 571 N.Y.S.2d 808 (App.Div.2d Dep't), appeal denied, 78 N.Y.2d 855, 573 N.Y.S.2d 645, 578 N.E.2d 443 (1991), New York's Appellate Division ad......
-
Molinari v. Bloomberg
...was changed; in both cases, the phrase referred to the structure of the body, not its `identity.' See Mehiel v. County Bd. of Legislators, 175 A.D.2d 109, 571 N.Y.S.2d 808 (2d Dept.1991); See Lane v. Johnson, 283 N.Y. 244, 28 N.E.2d 705 (1940); Graham v. Bd. of Supervisors, 25 A.D.2d 250, 2......
-
Suffolk County Democratic Committee v. Gaffney
...not apply to Suffolk County since the County operates under a charter form of government (see, Mehiel v. County Board of Legislators of the County of Westchester, 175 A.D.2d 109, 571 N.Y.S.2d 808; Ames v. Smoot, 98 A.D.2d 216, 471 N.Y.S.2d The cause of action alleging a violation of the Vot......
-
League of Women Voters of Westchester v. County of Westchester
...of reapportionment pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(a)(13)(a), it is not controlling here (see, Mehiel v. County Bd. of Legislators, 175 A.D.2d 109, 110, 571 N.Y.S.2d 808; see also, Suffolk County Democratic Comm. v. Gaffney, 196 A.D.2d 799, 800, 601 N.Y.S.2d 935; Matter of Angel......