Town of Black Brook v. State

• Decision Date: 31 March 1977
• Citation: 393 N.Y.S.2d 946,362 N.E.2d 579,41 N.Y.2d 486
• Parties: , 362 N.E.2d 579 TOWN OF BLACK BROOK, Respondent, v. STATE of New York et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 946

393 N.Y.S.2d 946

41 N.Y.2d 486, 362 N.E.2d 579

TOWN OF BLACK BROOK, Respondent, v. STATE of New York et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 31, 1977.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Murray, Susswein, New York City, Ruth Kessler Toch and Stanley Fishman, Albany, of counsel), for appellants.

Robert Rosenthal, Monsey, and Louis P. Meconi, Plattsburgh, for respondent.

BREITEL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Town of Black Brook, one of numerous localities situated in the Adirondack Park region, seeks judgment, against the State, the agency, and related officials, declaring that the Adirondack Park Agency Act (Executive Law, art. 27) violates the home rule provisions of article IX of the State Constitution. The appeal arises on defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for the town's lack of standing to attack the constitutionality of the State statute. Special Term dismissed the complaint; the Appellate Division reversed; and defendants appeal.

This issue is whether a local government has standing to challenge an enactment of the State Legislature as violative of the home rule protection afforded local governments in article IX of the Constitution.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. (While the Appellate Division correctly held that plaintiff town has standing to bring the action, the complaint should probably be dismissed on the merits on remittal for the reasons stated in Wambat Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 490, 393 N.Y.S.2d 949, 362 N.E.2d 581, decided herewith.) Ample and respected precedent establish that a local government is without standing to attack the constitutionality of State legislation affecting its powers. Where, however, the contention of the local government is that the statute violates the home rule guarantees of article IX of the Constitution, there should be a limited exception. A contrary result would frustrate the purpose of article IX, the promotion of strong local government.

Plaintiff is one of the many local governments in the vast Adirondack Park region whose zoning and land planning powers have been subordinated to the comprehensive land use and development plan of the Adirondack Park Agency Act (Executive Law, art. 27). The constitutional issue raised here is discussed at length in Wambat Realty Corp. v. State of New York, a companion case brought by a private owner and would-be developer of land in the Town of Black Brook (41 N.Y.2d 490, 393 N.Y.S.2d 949, 362 N.E.2d 581, Supra). The issue of standing nevertheless remains in this case, although the determination on the merits is foredoomed by the result in the companion case.

The general rule of law is that a political subdivision of the State may not challenge the constitutionality of an act of the State Legislature restricting its governmental powers (e.g., Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 307 N.Y. 475, 487--489, 121 N.E.2d 428, 432--434, app. dsmd. 351 U.S. 922, 76 S.Ct. 780, 100 L.Ed. 1453; County of Albany v. Hooker, 204 N.Y. 1, 9--10, 97 N.E. 403, 405; compare Board of Educ. v. Allen, 27 A.D.2d 69, 71, 276 N.Y.S.2d 234, 237, affd. on other grounds 20 N.Y.2d 109, 281 N.Y.S.2d 799, 228 N.E.2d 791, affd. 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 with 27 A.D.2d 69, 74, 276 N.Y.S.2d 234, 238 (concurring opn.), and 20 N.Y.2d 109, 118, 281 N.Y.S.2d 799, 805, 228 N.E.2d 791, 795 (dissenting opn. per Van Voorhis, J.); cf. Matter of Jeter v. Ellenville Cent. School Dist., 41 N.Y.2d 283, 287, 392 N.Y.S.2d 403, 405, 360 N.E.2d 1086, 1088, for an explication of the right of units of municipal government to litigate against the State on issues other than challenges to the constitutionality of statutes and the absence of a right, generally, to challenge the constitutionality of statutes affecting them). The attributed principle underlying this well-settled doctrine has been often restated. A local government is merely a political subdivision created by the sovereign State. As such, it exercises its powers subject to the direction and control of the State, and impairment of those powers raises no constitutional issue. (E.g., Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, supra, 307 N.Y. p. 487, 121 N.E.2d p. 432; County of Albany v. Hooker, supra, 204 N.Y. pp. 9--10, 97 N.E. p. 405; Board of Educ. v. Allen, 27 A.D.2d 69, 71, 276 N.Y.S.2d 234, 237 Supra.) Undiscriminating application of the general rule to the instant case, however, would undermine the home rule protection afforded local governments in article IX of the Constitution, by subverting the very purpose of giving the local governments powers which the State Legis...