Orange Cnty. Legislature v. Diana
| Decision Date | 21 March 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 23084,40 Misc.3d 278,968 N.Y.S.2d 319 |
| Parties | ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATURE, Petitioner, v. Edward A. DIANA, as County Executive of Orange, and J. Neil Blair, as Budget Director of Orange County, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall, White Plains, for Petitioner Orange.
David L. Darwin, County Attorney of Orange County, Goshen, for Respondents Edward A. Diana, County Executive of Orange County and Neil Blair, as Budget Director of Orange County.
It is ordered that the petition of the Orange County Legislature, insofar as it seeks, inter alia, Article 78 relief in the nature of mandamus, is granted to the extent hereinafter set forth; and it is further
Ordered, that consistent with the foregoing, Respondents' cross-motion, which seeks summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR § 3212, and a dismissal of the petition, is denied and the answer is dismissed; and it is further
Ordered, that consistent with the foregoing, the Court, sua sponte, grants to Petitioner summary judgment; and it is further
Ordered, that consistent with the foregoing, and to the extent that Petitioner and Respondents seek a declaration, pursuant to CPLR § 3001, of their respective rights and legal relations, such declaratory relief is granted to the extent set forth herein; and it is further
Ordered, that consistent with the foregoing, and to the extent Petitioner seeks injunctive relief, pursuant to Article 63 of the CPLR, such injunctive relief is granted to the extent set forth herein.
Petitioner, Orange County Legislature, commenced this proceeding, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. It is a proceeding which emanates from an inter-branch dispute between Edward Diana, Orange County Executive, and the Orange County Legislature over the adoption and implementation of the 2013 Orange County Budget, and in which each side seeks, inter alia, various modes of injunctive and declaratory relief.
At issue, and the catalyst for the dispute, is whether The Valley View Center for Nursing Care and Rehabilitation [“Valley View”], the County's sole nursing home/residential care facility, will continue to remain open and operational for budget year 2013 [a priority established by the Orange County Legislature] or whether the County Executive possesses the inherent statutory power, under the Orange County Charter [the “Charter”], to unilaterally close the facility for budgetary reasons without the Legislature's approval. It is a dispute presented in the context of the adoption of the 2013 Budget itself; the procedural validity and legitimacy of which requires this Court's examination of the power and authority reposed in the executive and legislative branches by the Charter, the Charter's inherent system of checks and balances, the validity of the legislative amendments purportedly adopted to the County Executive's proposed budget, including the extent to which, if at all, such amendments remained within the confines of the State's two percent (2%) tax cap, the County Executive's veto of those amendments, the Legislature's override of that veto and the County Executive's declaration of the same as “null and void” and “unlawful”.
Orange County operates under a Charter form of government, the underpinnings of which are derived from State constitutional and legislative authority. 1 The Charter also outlines the procedure for the adoption of the County Budget; a procedure which contemplates the submission of a Proposed Budget to the Orange County Legislature by the County Executive, the Legislature's subsequent examination of, and where applicable amendment to, the Proposed Budget, the acceptance and/or veto of Legislature's changes by the County Executive, and the Legislature's acquiescence to, or override of, such veto. Superimposed upon the County budgetary process is the necessity for compliance with Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011 2 [ General Municipal Law § 3–c] which imposes upon the county [indeed virtually all municipalities with the exception of the City of New York and the counties within its boundaries] a two percent (2%) cap on the real property tax levy, absent the adoption of a local law authorizing a levy in excess of the cap.
The County Executive argues that the budgetary amendments effectuated by the Legislature were defective in two respects: (1) that the Legislature's November 14,2012 Resolution (Resolution 272 of 2012) increased the 2013 tax levy over the 2% tax cap and by doing so it was required to [but failed to] pass a corresponding local law, by at least 60% of those entitled to vote thereon, as required by Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011; and (2) that the Legislature's subsequent override of his veto on December 12, 2012 was procedurally defective in that it amended, and in effect ratified, the Legislature's Resolution of November 14, 2012, Resolution 272, which impermissibly exceeded the tax cap but included a different levy amount.
The County Executive further argues, inter alia, that he possesses the inherent power and authority to close Valley View; power and authority derived from the express grant of authority conferred upon him by the County Charter, and necessarily implied from the Charter and State law. This power and authority, he asserts, is superior to, and exists independently of, the Legislature's power derived from its adoption of a budget resolution purporting to fund Valley View for an entire year.
In opposition, the County Legislature argues that the County Executive has misconstrued and misinterpreted its Budget Resolution of November 14, 2012 [Resolution No. 272]; a Resolution, it asserts, which neither increases nor decreases the County Executive's proposed tax levy, which itself was under the tax cap. In sum, the Legislature argues that the clear intent of the same was that the County Executive's tax levy, as it applied to Valley View, was neither increased nor decreased, but merely reallocated. Thus, since the tax levy was under the 2% tax cap, no local law was required. Correspondingly, it argues that, its veto override vote of December 12, 2012 [Resolution 328], and its adoption of the 2013 Budget [Resolution 331] Resolution No. 338, was proper since Resolution 272 never changed the magnitude of the County Executive's initial tax levy proposal.
The Legislature further argues that the County Executive's proposed closure of Valley View is tantamount to the elimination and/or abolishment of a department; power and authority, it asserts, only the Legislature has under the Charter. The Legislature therefore seeks, inter alia, Article 78 relief in the nature of mandamus compelling the County Executive to implement the Legislature's 2013 Budget, and injunctive relief enjoining, prohibiting and restraining the County Executive from closing Valley View.
The Petition is granted and the Petitioner is awarded such Article 78 injunctive and declaratory relief to the extent set forth herein. Consistent with the foregoing, the Respondents' cross-motion is correspondingly denied and the answer dismissed.
The Orange County Charter is the operative document for the County and sets forth the “form of government of Orange County”. It is a document which provides, among its various stated purposes, for the “separation of the County executive and legislative functions”. Charter § 1.01.
Pursuant to Article I of the Charter, the County Executive's functions, duties and powers are enumerated in Article III [§ 1.05(b) ] and the functions, powers and duties of the County Legislature are enumerated in Article II of the Charter [§ 1.05(I) ].
Article II, § 2.02, in relevant part, provides that the County Legislature shall be the legislative, appropriating and policy determining body of the County ... [and shall possess] all the legislative powers and duties conferred [upon it] together with all powers and duties necessarily implied or incidental thereto. Section 2.02 further provides that, in addition to all powers conferred by the foregoing provisions, or any other provision of the Charter, the County Legislature is vested with the following enumerated powers:
(b) to make appropriations, incur indebtedness and adopt a budget ...
(c) to levy taxes ...
(f) by local law to create, alter, combine or abolish county administrative units not headed by elective officials; and ( l ) establish or abolish positions of employment and titles thereof. (Emphasis Supplied).
Article III, § 3.02, defines the powers and duties of the Executive branch and, in relevant part, provides that “the County Executive shall be the chief executive of the county, except as otherwise provided in this Charter or the Administrative Code, [and] shall have and exercise all executive administrative powers and duties now or [thereafter] conferred upon him by [the] Charter or the administrative code ... or the executive branch of the County by State law, together with all the powers and duties necessarily implied or incidental thereto.”
Among such powers, and those specifically conferred upon him, include that he shall:
(b) “be the Chief Budget Officer of the county and present to the County Legislature the Annual Budget and at the close of each fiscal year, or as soon thereafter as practical, a report of the financial and other transactions of the County, including the reports of the several departments of the
County government; ...
(e) supervise, direct and control and administer all departments; ...
(h) supervise and direct the internal structure and organization of every unit of the executive branch of the County including, except as may otherwise be provided in this Charter, the Administrative Code or applicable law, the appointment and dismissal of employees; ... and
(q) declare the existence of emergencies affecting the life, health and safety of inhabitants of the County ... [and] ... exercise all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilbertz v. City of New York
...provisions are to be construed so as to avoid conflict and preserve the intent of the legislature. Orange Co. Legislature v. Diana , 40 Misc. 3d 278, 300-01, 968 N.Y.S.2d 319 (Sup. Ct., Orange Co. 2013). Statutes, §§ 97-98. Where the language is ambiguous or inconclusive, the courts may tur......
-
Genger v. Genger (In re Orly Genger)
... ... Feb. 25, ... 2021); Lopez v. Nassau Cnty. Sheriffs Dep't , No ... 17-CV-3722, 2018 WL 3321430, at *5 ... , 11 N.Y.3d 146, 158 (2008)) ... See also Orange Cty. Legislature v. Diana , 968 ... N.Y.S.2d 319, 340 (Sup. Ct., ... ...
-
Uddo v. Deluca, 17-cv-3848 (NG)
...and trust" in the other and "reasonably relies on such party to act in his or her best interest." Orange Cty. Legislature v. Diana , 40 Misc.3d 278, 968 N.Y.S.2d 319, 340 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) ; see also Schneiderman ex rel. People v. Lower Esopus River Watch, Inc. , 975 N.Y.S.2d 369 (Table)......
-
Constantino v. Cnty. of Orange (In re Fitzpatrick)
...against then County Executive Edward Diana to restrain him from unilaterally closing Valley View (see Orange County Legislature v. Diana, 40 Misc.3d 278, 968 N.Y.S.2d 319 [Supreme Ct. Orange Co.2013 [ONOFRY, J.] ) it argued that closing Valley View would effectively abolish the Department o......