Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Sup'rs of Westchester County
| Decision Date | 03 February 1967 |
| Citation | 53 Misc.2d 88,277 N.Y.S.2d 885 |
| Parties | The TOWN OF GREENBURGH et al., Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Fiore, Acton & Smith, White Plains, for the Town of Greenburgh and others.
Gordon Miller, County Atty., White Plains, for Bd. of Supervisors and Westchester County.
Francis S. Claps, Corp. Counsel, New Rochelle.
Anthony Antinozzi, Corp. Counsel, City of Rye.
Francis Cline, Corp. Counsel, Yonkers.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York.
Raymond J. Margles, Corp. Counsel, Yorktown.
David M. Scarpino, Corp. Counsel, Mount Vernon.
Leone Pecoraro, Corp. Counsel, Peekskill.
William McKinley, Corp. Counsel, White Plains.
Westchester County has a total population, according to its 1965 special census enumeration, of 853,198. It contains eighteen towns and six cities. The towns range in population from 82,882 in Greenburgh to 2,924, in North Salem. Among the cities, Yonkers has the largest population with 201,573, and Rye has the smallest, with 15,232. In accordance with the provisions of the Town Law (Sections 10 and 20) which provide that each town in the County shall have a supervisor, and the County Law (Section 150) and the Westchester County Administrative Code (Laws 1948, Chap. 852, Sec. 12) which provide that the supervisors of the several cities and towns shall constitute the Board of Supervisors, the Board has 45 members, one from each town, 12 from Yonkers, 5 from Mt. Vernon, 4 from New Rochelle, 3 from White Plains, 2 from Peekskill, and 1 from Rye. When this action was commenced each supervisor had one vote, so that the Town of Greenburgh with 82,882 in population had no greater voting power in the board than North Salem, with 2924, and less than any of the six cities except Rye although its population was greater than that of any of them, except Yonkers. It was to correct this inequity in representation that Greenburgh sought relief, claiming that its citizens were denied equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article 1, Section 11, of our own constitution, whose equal protection clause is as broad in its coverage as that of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp., 299 N.Y. 512, 530, 544, 87 N.E.2d 541, 548, 556, 14 A.L.R.2d 133). On January 13, 1966, the plaintiffs Town of Greenburgh and its Town Board were granted relief, by way of summary judgment, declaring the apportionment of voting power in the Board to be unconstitutional. The Court, however, did not declare the provisions of the Town or the County Laws, or the Administrative Code unconstitutional insofar as they provided for the composition of the Board of Supervisors, or grant other relief requested, but provided that the Board might have a further opportunity to adopt a plan of reapportionment consistent with constitutional standards. (Town of Greenburgh v Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, 49 Misc.2d 116, 266 N.Y.S.2d 998).
On April 18th, the Board adopted a local law providing for an apportionment plan, which was submitted to the court for approval. That plan was rejected, again because of inequities in representation, as between the towns and cities, an interim weighted voting plan was directed to be put into effect, weighting the vote of each supervisor, in proportion to the population of his constituency, and the parties to the action were given leave to seek further relief on or after December 1, 1966, or prior to that time if the Board should adopt a permanent apportionment plan (Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors of County of Westchester, 51 Misc.2d 168, 272 N.Y.S.2d 906).
On October 3rd, the Committee on Legislation of the Board of Supervisors submitted its report recommending that the Board submit two plans designated as plan No. 7 and plan No. 8 to the Court for review, before the adoption of a local law. The Board did not adopt the recommendation in its entirety, but did submit plan No. 8 for approval by motion returnable on October 14th. On that date the individual plaintiffs, members of the League of Women Voters of Westchester County, were permitted to intervene. However, since no public hearing had been held with respect to the proposed local law, and it had not been adopted, decision of the motion for approval was held in abeyance pending further action by the Board. Thereafter and on November 21, 1966, the Board of Supervisors adopted the proposed law, which was disapproved by the County Executive on November 28th, and repassed over his veto on the same day. Since that date hearings have been held by the court and the controversy has been fully submitted. The court is now required to determine whether the local law meets constitutional requirements for full and effective citizen participation in the political processes of the County's legislative body. (Cf. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y.2d 94, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 209 N.E.2d 778).
The local law adds nine additional legislators to the Board, increasing the number from 45 to 54, and distributes legislative seats and voting power according to a 'modified weighted voting' plan, which retains the towns and cities of the county, as the districts from which the legislators are to be elected, and purports to equalize the voting power of the legislators by providing multiple votes for all legislators and additional legislators for the larger towns, so that the vote of the legislator or legislators from each district is substantially proportional to the population of the district which he or they represent. A detailed analysis of the plan, insofar as it involves the distribution of the legislative seats, and the vote in the Board is shown in the following table:
Population No. of Votes per Total Per Capita
Town 1965 Census Supervisors Supervisor Votes Representation
------------ ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- --------------
Bedford 15,867 1 16 16 992
Cortlandt 31,340 2 16 32 980
Eastchester 34,129 2 17 34 1004
Greenburgh 82,882 4 21 84 987
Harrison 20,433 1 20 20 1022
Lewisboro 5,123 1 5 5 1025
Mamaroneck 30,745 2 15 30 1025
Mt. Pleasant 37,220 2 19 38 980
New Castle 16,351 1 16 16 1022
North Castle 7,738 1 8 8 967
North Salem 2,924 1 3 3 975
Ossining 31,455 2 16 32 983
Pelham 13,666 1 14 14 976
Pound Ridge 2,962 1 3 3 987
Rye 39,846 2 20 40 996
Scarsdale 18,345 1 18 18 1019
Somers 6,655 1 7 7 951
Yorktown 22,044 1 22 22 1022
----------- ----------- ---------- --------------
Total Towns 419,725 27 422 Mean 995
----------- ----------- ---------- --------------
City
------------
Mount Vernon 72,918 5 15 75 972
New Rochelle 75,206 4 19 76 990
Peekskill 18,504 2 9 18 1028
Rye 15,232 1 15 15 1015
White Plains 50,040 3 17 51 981
Yonkers 201,573 12 17 204 988
----------- ----------- ---------- --------------
Total Cities 433,473 27 439 Mean 987
----------- ----------- ---------- --------------
Grand Total 853,198 54 861 Mean 991
According to the plan, if approved, there will be 11 towns which will be single member districts, (districts with a single representative) and 7 towns which will be multimember districts (districts in which two or more representatives will be elected at large). (Additional represetatives have been allotted in the multimember districts substantially on the basis of one for each additional 18,000 or major fraction thereof, in population. Votes have been assigned to each legislator on the basis of one for each 1000 in population, and each remaining major fraction of 1000. In the cities there will be one single member district, three multimember districts, and two districts, Yonkers and New Rochelle, in each of which representatives will be elected from wards, in accordance with City Charters. The number of representatives from the cities could not be changed consistently with relevant statutes, since the charter of each city had provided the number of supervisors to be elected, as city officers. In the cities which were to constitute multiple member districts, therefore, votes were apportioned among the supervisors on the basis of one for each 1000 of population by dividing the population in each case by the number of supervisors, and assigning votes according to the quotient so obtained. In the Cities of New Rochelle and Yonkers, although the supervisors will not be elected at large, and the wards of the Cities will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P., In re
...Town Corp., 299 N.Y. 512, 544, 87 N.E.2d 541, 556 (1949) (J. Fuld dissenting); Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, 53 Misc.2d 88, 277 N.Y.S.2d 885 (Sup.Ct., West.Cty.1967); People v. Reilly, 85 Misc.2d 702, 381 N.Y.S.2d 732 (West.Cty.Ct.1976). See 2 Rev. Record......
-
DuBois v. City of College Park
... ... City of College Park in Prince George's County, Maryland. Pursuant to a court order to ... of Franklin, etc. v. Board of Ed., etc., 74 N.J. 345, 378 A.2d 218, 219 n. 2 ... See Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors, 53 Misc.2d ... ...
-
Iannucci v. Board of Sup'rs of Washington County
... ... , the plaintiffs are residents, taxpayers and property owners of the Town of Kingsbury and, in the Saratoga County case, the plaintiffs are property ... See, also Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, 53 Misc.2d 88, 97--99, 277 ... ...
- Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Sup'rs of Westchester County