Matter of Schulz v. Board of Elections, 43 N.Y.2d 924 (1978)
r
r
A party’s unreasonable delay in commencing a legal proceeding to challenge a local law, especially when the party was aware of the proposed law and its potential impact, can bar the proceeding under the doctrine of laches.
r
r
Summary
r
Petitioners sought to prevent a local law concerning the abolishment of the Westchester County Parkway Police and the elected office of Sheriff from appearing on the ballot, arguing its unconstitutionality. The Court of Appeals held that while the proceeding was not premature, the petitioners’ delay in bringing the suit until shortly before the election barred the action under the doctrine of laches. The court emphasized that the petitioners were aware of the proposed law for a considerable time and that the delay imposed an undue burden on the respondents to formulate a defense quickly.
r
r
Facts
r
A local law was proposed to abolish the Westchester County Parkway Police and the elected office of Sheriff, replacing them with a new Westchester County Department of Public Safety headed by an appointed official.
r
The proposal was debated and studied for some time before being approved by the county legislature.
r
Petitioners were aware of the proposal and were represented by counsel at the public hearing before its adoption.
r
The local law was adopted by the legislature on July 17, 1978, and approved by the County Executive on July 28, 1978.
r
Petitioners commenced the proceeding on October 5, 1978, approximately one month before the election.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Special Term dismissed the petition as premature.
r
The Appellate Division reversed, finding the proceeding not premature and declaring the local law unconstitutional.
r
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, finding the proceeding barred by laches and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court with instructions to dismiss the petition.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the petitioners’ delay in commencing a proceeding to challenge the constitutionality of a local law, until shortly before the election at which the law was to be voted on, barred the proceeding under the doctrine of laches.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the petitioners’ unnecessary and untoward delay in commencing the proceeding imposed an undue burden on the respondents to formulate a defense to complex challenges within a short timeframe. The court determined that the petitioners did not act with due diligence.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners were well aware of the proposed local law and its potential impact, yet they waited over two months before commencing the proceeding. This delay placed a “well nigh impossible burden upon respondents” to formulate a defense to a variety of complex challenges within a matter of days. The court emphasized that resolving such important public issues in a