Seaman v. Fedourich
| Decision Date | 03 May 1965 |
| Citation | 46 Misc.2d 289,258 N.Y.S.2d 1008 |
| Parties | Douglas W. SEAMAN, Richard P. Dimmick, A. Robert Dexheimer, George P. Doyle, Plaintiffs, v. Walter FEDOURICH et al. Constituting the Common Council of the City of Binghamton, and John J. Burns, Mayor of the City of Binghamton, N. Y., Defendants, and Marion A. Nelson, Anthony R. Gennett, Thomas E. Hastings and Alfred J. Libous, Defendants-Intervenors. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Willard E. Pierce, Jr., Binghamton, for plaintiffs.
Stuart M. Pearis, Binghamton, for defendants-intervenors.
John V. Romagnoli, Corp. Counsel, Binghamton, for defendants.
By decision dated April 13, 1965, 258 N.Y.S.2d 152 we found the apportionment of the members of the Common Council of the City of Binghamton in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article 1, § 11 of the New York State Constitution and retained jurisdiction of the action so that we might, on application, review any apportionment plan adopted by local law.
The Common Council has since adopted Local Law #1 of 1965 which divides the City of Binghamton into Councilmanic Districts, the boundaries of which follow the former ward boundaries because, it is claimed, the ward boundaries follow natural geographic divisions which should not be disturbed. Of course 6 of the 13 wards have been incorporated in the 7 Councilmanic Districts.
The population of the Councilmanic Districts based on the 1960 Federal Census and the population claimed by the Common Council differ materially. These are as follows:
1960 Census
----------------------------------
District Population
---------------- ----------------
1 9,999
2 11,301
3 10,531
4 11,426
5 9,013
6 7,863
7 15,808
By Computation of Common Council
----------------------------------
District Population
---------------- ----------------
1 9,615
2 10,501
3 10,600
4 11,588
5 9,640
6 8,640
7 12,003
The plaintiffs and the Intervenors attack Local Law #1 of 1965 on a variety of technical grounds and the defendants oppose the motions on technical grounds but the issue to be decided is the constitutionality of the proposed 7 Councilmanic Districts. It was for the purpose of reviewing any such local law that we retained jurisdiction of the action, and we will proceed to do so.
The Common Council justifies its adoption of the figures above indicated by excluding 3,214 persons who were enumerated in the 1960 Federal Census as residents of the Binghamton State Hospital and by estimates of the increase and decrease of population in the various wards since 1960 as a result of population shifts due to state highway programs in the City and the projected effect of the Urban Renewal projects. We cannot accept the figures resulting from either of these efforts.
Residents in or at the Binghamton State Hospital are a part of the population and may not be eliminated from former Ward No. 12 and proposed Councilmanic District No. 7, or the total population of the City of Binghamton. The approximations of increase and decrease of population by reason of population movement and other factors are at best estimates and are not to be accepted in lieu of the Federal Census. With a Federal Census available we know of no instance in which a court has been called upon to otherwise determine population as a question of fact, nor may the Common Council of the City of Binghamton, however sincere its purpose, determine the question for us.
Among the papers handed us on these motions is a certified and attested certificate of the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census which shows that on April 1, 1960 the population of the City of Binghamton was 75,941 and the population of old Wards No. 12 and No. 13 was 10,817 and 4,991 respectively. These now comprise the proposed Councilmanic District No. 7 with a population of $15,808. Old Ward No. 6, which is identical with proposed Councilmanic District No. 6, is shown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaman v. Fedourich
...of population movement and other factors are at best estimates and are not to be accepted in lieu of the Federal census' (46 Misc.2d 289, 291, 258 N.Y.S.2d 1008), Justice SLOAN at Special Term rejected the defendants' population figures and, looking to the data supplied by the 1960 census, ......
-
Bianchi v. Griffing
...v. Fedourich, 47 Misc.2d 26, 262 N.Y.S.2d 591 (1965), on remand after the decision by the New York Court of Appeals, 16 N.Y.2d 94, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 209 N.E.2d 778 (1965), the Common Council of Binghamton was directed to "adopt and submit to this court for approval a districting plan, which......
-
Augostini v. Lasky
... ... Seaman ... DAVID F. LEE, Jr., Justice ... The plaintiffs move for a summary judgment. Their complaint asks that: ... 1 ... In Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y.S.2d 94, 101-102, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 449-450, 209, N.E.2d 778, 782 (July 9, 1965) affg. 23 A.D.2d 968, 250 N.Y.S.2d 1021, which affd. 46 ... ...
-
Lodico v. Board of Supervisors of County of Rockland
...Council subsequently formulated a plan, which was determined by the Court on May 3, 1965, not to meet constitutional requirements, 258 N.Y.S.2d 1008. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division for the Third Department on May 20, 1965, without opinion, 23 A.D.2d 968, 25......