Henry v. Suffolk County, 42 N.Y.2d 818 (1981)
A county legislature cannot, through resolutions, unilaterally frustrate the hiring power granted to the District Attorney by the county charter; such power may only be limited by legislative action of equal or greater dignity.
Summary
The Suffolk County District Attorney and two senior assistants challenged resolutions passed by the Suffolk County Legislature. Resolution 1070 gave the county executive and presiding officer the power to approve or disapprove requests to fill positions earmarked by the budget director, impacting the District Attorney’s hiring ability. Resolution 919 established a salary plan where new county appointees would start at the lowest step in the grade unless a higher salary was approved. The Court of Appeals found Resolution 1070 invalid as applied to the District Attorney, as it encroached upon the hiring power granted by the Suffolk County Charter. The challenge to Resolution 919 was deemed moot because the resolution was amended, rendering it inapplicable to Assistant District Attorneys.
Facts
The Suffolk County Legislature passed two resolutions that impacted the District Attorney’s office: Resolution 1070 and Resolution 919.
Resolution 1070 required the county executive and presiding officer to approve any request to fill a position earmarked by the budget director.
Resolution 919 stipulated that new appointees to county positions would be paid at the lowest step in grade unless the county executive and presiding officer approved a higher salary.
The District Attorney argued that these resolutions infringed upon his power to hire assistants as granted by the Suffolk County Charter.
Procedural History
The District Attorney and his assistants brought an action challenging the validity of Resolutions 1070 and 919.
The lower courts ruled on the matter, and the case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Resolution 1070 improperly encroached upon the power of the District Attorney as granted by the Suffolk County Charter, thereby rendering it invalid as applied to that office.
2. Whether the challenge to Resolution 919 was moot due to the passage of Resolution No. 1980-1979, which amended the salary plan and rendered the salary approval procedure inapplicable to the hiring of Assistant District Attorneys.
Holding
1. Yes, Resolution 1070 improperly encroached upon the power of the District Attorney because the Suffolk County Charter granted the District Attorney the power to hire assistants as the county legislature allowed in the budget, and Resolution 1070 gave the county executive and presiding officer power to unilaterally frustrate that action.
2. Yes, the challenge to Resolution 919 was moot because Resolution No. 1980-1979 amended the classification and salary plan, rendering the salary approval procedure inapplicable to the hiring of Assistant District Attorneys.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding Resolution 1070, the court reasoned that the Suffolk County Charter granted the District Attorney the power to hire assistants, subject to budgetary constraints approved by the legislature. Resolution 1070, however, gave the county executive and presiding officer the unilateral power to frustrate the legislature’s action in authorizing assistants for the District Attorney. The court emphasized that while the District Attorney’s hiring power could be limited by legislative action of equal or greater dignity, it could not be done indirectly through a resolution like 1070.
The court stated, “It is the budget which defines the extent of the District Attorney’s hiring power. While that power properly may be limited by legislative action of equal or greater dignity than that sought to be altered, it may not be done indirectly by a resolution such as this.”
Regarding Resolution 919, the court found the challenge to be moot because the Suffolk County Legislature passed Resolution No. 1980-1979, which amended the classification and salary plan, rendering the salary approval procedure inapplicable to the hiring of Assistant District Attorneys. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ request for retroactive in-step salary payments did not alter the conclusion of mootness because the Appellate Division did not grant this relief, and the plaintiffs did not cross-appeal. The court stated, “Inasmuch as Resolution 919 is attacked only as applied to the hiring of assistants, the county’s action has rendered that portion of the complaint moot.”