Resnick v. County of Ulster, 44 N.Y.2d 279 (1978)
In non-charter counties, county legislatures have the authority to enact local laws providing that vacancies in the office of county legislator, occurring other than by expiration of the term, can be filled by the remaining members of the body.
Summary
This case addresses whether county legislatures in non-charter counties can enact local laws to fill vacancies in their membership. Ulster and Oswego Counties passed such laws, leading to legal challenges arguing that the power to appoint interim legislators rested solely with the Governor. The New York Court of Appeals held that the local laws were valid. The court emphasized the constitutional bill of rights for local governments, granting them broad authority to manage their “affairs or government,” including the selection of their officers. This authority extends to filling interim vacancies, even without specific authorization from the State Legislature.
Facts
Ulster County adopted a local law allowing the County Board of Supervisors to fill vacancies in the office of County Legislator. A resident and a legislator challenged the law’s validity. Oswego County enacted a similar local law. When a vacancy occurred, the county legislature appointed William Dyer to fill it, while the Governor simultaneously appointed Raymond Rebeor. This dual appointment led to legal suits to determine the rightful appointee.
Procedural History
In Resnick, the Supreme Court declared the Ulster County law invalid, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department. In Rebeor, the Special Term, following the Resnick decision, declared the Oswego law invalid. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed, finding the law valid. The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether county legislatures in non-charter counties have the authority to enact local laws providing that vacancies in the office of county legislator, occurring other than by expiration of the term, are to be filled by the remaining members of the body.
Holding
Yes, because the State Constitution vests local governments with the right to confer upon their officers the authority to appoint other officers of local government.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the bill of rights for local governments (NY Const, art IX, § 1, subd [b]) grants broad authority to local governments to manage their affairs, including the selection of their officers. This includes the power to fill interim vacancies. The court emphasized the constitutional and statutory provisions granting local governments the power to determine the mode of selection of their officers. The court noted that the 1964 home rule amendment was intended to be expansive, granting similar authority to all local governmental units. The court rejected the argument that the constitutional provision stating “the legislature shall provide for filling vacancies in office” (NY Const, art XIII, § 3) exclusively vested the State Legislature with authority over filling vacancies, stating that if inconsistencies in the Constitution do exist, the later amendment controls. The Court cited Bareham v City of Rochester, 246 NY 140, 145. To invalidate the local laws would be to take a step in the direction against which Cardozo warned when he observed that the home rule enactments “adopted by the people with much ado and after many years of agitation, will be another Statute of Uses, a form of words and little else, if the courts * * * ignore the new spirit that dictated their adoption” (Matter of Mayor, etc., of New York [Elm St.], 246 NY 72, 76).