Matter of Costello v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 72 N.Y.2d 1019 (1988)
Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law, concerning employment opportunities for former inmates, does not apply to the Waterfront Commission, an agency established by an interstate compact between New York and New Jersey.
Summary
Costello, convicted of multiple felonies, sought restoration to the longshoremen’s register as a checker, arguing the Waterfront Commission improperly denied his application by ignoring Article 23-A of the Correction Law. The Commission cited the seriousness of Costello’s crimes and his lack of good character. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s annulment of the Commission’s determination, finding a rational basis for the denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the Appellate Division’s rationale and adding that Article 23-A does not apply to the Waterfront Commission because the legislature did not properly amend the interstate compact that created the commission.
Facts
Costello had four felony convictions stemming from two schemes to defraud Las Vegas casinos.
He applied for restoration to the longshoremen’s register as a checker with the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.
The Waterfront Commission denied his application, citing the severity of his crimes and a lack of good character and integrity required for the checker position.
Procedural History
Costello initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Waterfront Commission’s decision.
Supreme Court initially granted Costello’s petition, annulling the Commission’s determination.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and dismissed the petition, finding a rational basis for the Commission’s denial.
Costello appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Waterfront Commission erred in denying Costello’s application for restoration to the longshoremen’s register.
Whether the provisions of Article 23-A of the Correction Law apply to the New York/New Jersey Waterfront Commission.
Holding
No, the Waterfront Commission did not err in denying Costello’s application because a rational basis existed for the decision due to the seriousness of Costello’s prior felony convictions and his lack of good character.
No, Article 23-A of the Correction Law does not apply to the Waterfront Commission because the New York Legislature did not properly amend the interstate compact that created the Commission to include the requirements of Article 23-A.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the Waterfront Commission had a rational basis to deny Costello’s application, referencing the Waterfront Commission Act and the precedent set in Matter of Sudano v Waterfront Commn., 87 AD2d 633.
The court emphasized that the Waterfront Commission was established by an Interstate Compact approved by Congress, making it subject to specific requirements for amendments and supplements as outlined in McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 9870.
According to the compact, amendments require legislative action by both New York and New Jersey.
The Court found no indication that the New York Legislature intended Article 23-A to apply to the Waterfront Commission. The court emphasized the absence of any reference to the Waterfront Commission in the text and legislative history of Article 23-A.
The court reasoned, “In the present case, the absence from the text and legislative history of article 23-A of any reference to the Waterfront Commission, coupled with the absence of an express statement that the Legislature was amending or supplementing the provisions of the ‘Compact’ and that article 23-A would take effect upon the enactment by New Jersey of legislation of identical effect, if it had not already done so, indicates that the New York Legislature never intended article 23-A to apply to the Waterfront Commission.”
The Court rejected the argument that similar public policies in New York and New Jersey regarding employment opportunities for former inmates were sufficient to amend the compact.
Therefore, the Waterfront Commission did not err by not applying Article 23-A when denying Costello’s application.