66 N.Y.2d 163 (1985)
A proposed city referendum that directly conflicts with a state statute is invalid and can be removed from the ballot.
Summary
This case concerns a proposed New York City referendum that sought to restrict the city’s ability to use property and funds for a military installation involved with nuclear weapons. The Committee to Stop the Airport sought to have the referendum removed from the ballot. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the referendum was invalid because it conflicted with New York State Law § 50(2), which grants cities the power to dispose of land to the United States for military use, notwithstanding any city charter provisions. The court found that because the referendum sought to deprive the city of a power granted by the legislature, it was facially invalid.
Facts
A proposed referendum sought to amend the New York City Charter § 67. The amendment aimed to prohibit the Board of Estimate from approving the sale, lease, or other disposition of city property for a military installation involved in carrying or storing nuclear weapons. It further sought to prohibit the Board from granting franchises, permits, or licenses for such purposes, as well as from approving appropriations of funds to facilitate the development of such installations.
Procedural History
The Special Term found the proposed amendment unconstitutional as it interfered with the federal government’s power to provide for national defense. It also found the amendment called for an unauthorized citywide opinion poll. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, agreeing that the amendment violated the Federal Constitution and was also invalid under State Law § 50(2). The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a proposed city referendum that seeks to restrict the city’s power to dispose of land for federal military installations, when that power is expressly granted by state law, is invalid and can be removed from the ballot.
Holding
Yes, because State Law § 50(2) expressly authorizes cities to sell, lease, exchange, or donate land to the United States for military use, notwithstanding any city charter provisions. Therefore, a referendum seeking to deprive the city of this power is invalid on its face.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision solely on state statutory grounds, finding it unnecessary to reach federal constitutional questions. The court emphasized that State Law § 50(2) grants cities the power to dispose of land to the United States for military use, even if it conflicts with city charter provisions. The proposed referendum directly contradicted this state law by attempting to preclude the city from approving the sale, lease, or exchange of city property for a federal military installation. Because the referendum sought to deprive the city authorities of a right and power granted by the legislature, the court held that it was invalid on its face and could have no legal effect if enacted. The court quoted the statute directly, noting that the state law authorizes cities to dispose of land for military reservations “notwithstanding the provisions of any charter or any other statute”. Because the disposition and use of city land was at the core of the controversy, the Court found it inappropriate to submit the referendum to the electorate.