Home News & Times v. City of Yonkers, 26 N.Y.2d 272 (1970): Statutory Requirements for Official Newspaper Designation

Home News & Times v. City of Yonkers, 26 N.Y.2d 272 (1970)

When designating official newspapers, a municipality must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements regarding voting procedures and political representation, ensuring each member votes for only one paper and that the newspapers with the highest votes are selected.

Summary

This case concerns the City of Yonkers’ designation of official newspapers, specifically challenging the process by which the Common Council selected the Herald-Statesman (a Republican daily) and The Record of Yonkers (a Democratic weekly). The Home News and Times, another Democratic weekly, argued that the Council violated Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law. The Court of Appeals held that the Council failed to comply with the statute because the Herald-Statesman did not receive any direct votes, and the voting process potentially allowed Republican councilmembers to influence the selection of a Democratic newspaper, undermining the statute’s intent for political diversity in the selection process. The court emphasized the importance of literal compliance with the statute.

Facts

The City of Yonkers needed to designate two official newspapers. The candidates were: the Home News and Times (Democratic weekly), The Record of Yonkers (Democratic weekly), and the Herald-Statesman (Republican daily). The mayor sought an opinion from the corporation counsel regarding the voting procedure. The corporation counsel advised that a formal vote was only needed for the second newspaper because the Herald-Statesman was the only daily. During the vote, all 13 council members voted for the two weeklies: The Record of Yonkers received seven votes, and the Home News and Times received six votes. The mayor then announced the Herald-Statesman and The Record of Yonkers as the official newspapers.

Procedural History

The Home News and Times challenged the designation. The lower courts upheld the city’s designation, finding that the legislative goal of political diversity was achieved. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, remitting the matter to Special Term for further proceedings.

Issue(s)

Whether the Common Council of the City of Yonkers complied with Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law when it designated the Herald-Statesman and The Record of Yonkers as the official newspapers, considering that the Herald-Statesman received no direct votes and the voting process may have allowed Republican councilmembers to influence the selection of a Democratic newspaper?

Holding

No, because the Common Council did not comply with Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law. The Herald-Statesman received no direct votes, and the voting process potentially allowed Republican councilmembers to influence the selection of a Democratic newspaper, undermining the statute’s intent.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of adhering to the explicit terms of Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law, which requires that the two newspapers with the highest number of votes be designated as official papers. The court found that the Herald-Statesman, receiving no votes, did not meet this requirement. The court rejected the argument that tacit approval or the corporation counsel’s opinion could substitute for affirmative action by the Council. Further, the court noted the statute implies that the designation of a paper claiming adherence to a particular party should be determined by council members of that party; Republican votes may have provided the margin to select one Democratic paper over another. The court quoted People ex rel. Argus Co. v. Bresler, stating, “It is the expression of a legislative intent to provide for the selection of an official newspaper by a minority of the common council and, for the effectuation of such a purpose, each alderman was permitted to vote for only one paper.” The court concluded that there was no ambiguity in the statute to warrant the lower courts’ departure from its explicit terms and that literal compliance is often the better course, even at the cost of a stalemate.