NYSA-Westchester Assoc. v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 257 (1977)
A city’s local law amending tax foreclosure procedures is constitutional, even if it differs from state law, provided the state law is optional and the local law doesn’t contradict the state’s overall scheme.
Summary
This case addresses the constitutionality of New York City’s Local Law No. 45 of 1976, which reduced the time before in rem tax foreclosure proceedings from three years to one. The petitioners argued this law was inconsistent with state law and thus unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals upheld the local law, finding that the state’s in rem tax foreclosure procedure was optional, allowing the city to enact its own procedure as long as it did not contradict state law. The court emphasized that lack of uniformity does not equate to inconsistency.
Facts
The City of New York enacted Local Law No. 45, shortening the waiting period for in rem tax foreclosure proceedings to one year. Previously, the city’s Administrative Code, Title D, established a tax foreclosure procedure, initially enacted by the State Legislature and amended several times. The state’s Stagg Act (later Real Property Tax Law) provided an optional in rem foreclosure procedure for tax districts. New York City had its own specific procedures under Title D of its Administrative Code. Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 45, arguing it was inconsistent with state law.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the constitutionality of Local Law No. 45. The petitioners appealed directly to the New York Court of Appeals under CPLR 5601(b)(2), arguing that a local law should be considered a state statutory provision for the purposes of that section.
Issue(s)
Whether New York City’s Local Law No. 45 of 1976, reducing the waiting period for in rem tax foreclosure proceedings, is unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with a “general law” of the state, namely Title 3 of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law (the successor to the Stagg Act)?
Holding
No, because the state’s in rem tax foreclosure procedure is optional, not mandatory, and the city’s local law does not contradict the overall design and pattern of the state statute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the taxing power in New York State is vested in the Legislature, which can delegate this power to cities. While the Constitution grants local governments the power to adopt local laws, this power is restricted regarding the levy, collection, and administration of local taxes. The court reasoned that even assuming the Real Property Tax Law is a “general law,” Local Law No. 45 is not inconsistent with it. The state law is optional, allowing local tax districts to choose whether to use it. Nothing prevents the establishment of local in rem foreclosure procedures through special acts. The court emphasized the difference between lack of uniformity and inconsistency, stating, “Petitioners appear to have been diverted by the false assumption that lack of uniformity (i.e., the failure of the procedural details of the city’s title D precisely to parallel those of the optional State statute) is the same as inconsistency or contradiction. It is not.” The court upheld the local law, finding that it did not deny petitioners equal protection of the laws. The court stated that the State procedure is optional, rather than mandatory, i.e., local tax districts may elect to take advantage of its provisions but are not required to do so. Nothing in the statute forecloses the establishment of local in rem foreclosure procedures by the adoption of special acts.