Council of the City of New York v. Giuliani, 84 N.Y.2d 381 (1994)

A city charter amendment or repeal requires legislative action of equal dignity and import, such as a local law, and cannot be accomplished merely through the adoption of a budget resolution or modification.

Summary

This case concerns whether New York City officials properly amended the City Charter by defunding the Independent Budget Office (IBO) through budget modifications and resolutions, rather than a local law. The Court of Appeals held that the City Council’s budget actions were insufficient to amend or repeal the Charter provisions mandating the IBO’s establishment and funding. The Court emphasized that amending the City Charter requires a legislative act of equal dignity and import, which a budget resolution does not meet, and that implied repeals of legislation are disfavored. The Court affirmed the lower court’s order compelling the establishment and funding of the IBO, remitting the case to set a new compliance timeframe.

Facts

In 1989, New York City voters approved a revision to the City Charter establishing the IBO to enhance public understanding of the city’s budget. The Charter mandated the IBO’s establishment, funding (at least 10% of the Office of Management and Budget’s expenses), and the appointment of a Director. For fiscal year 1991, $2,898,000 was appropriated for the IBO. However, due to a recession, the Mayor proposed postponing the IBO’s start-up, and the City Council approved a budget modification eliminating IBO funding for fiscal year 1991. The fiscal year 1992 budget, also approved by the City Council, contained no appropriations for the IBO. Not-for-profit advocacy groups then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the establishment and funding of the IBO.

Procedural History

Petitioners commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus to compel the Mayor and City Council to establish and fund the IBO and to compel the Special Appointment Committee to appoint a Director. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering the city to fund the IBO and appoint a director. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the City Council’s adoption of a budget modification eliminating funding for the IBO and the adoption of a budget with no appropriation for the IBO was the legislative equivalent of a local law delaying the establishment of the IBO.

2. Whether the 1991 budget modification and 1992 budget implicitly amended the Charter’s IBO provisions.

Holding

1. No, because a legislative act of equal dignity and import is required to modify a statute, and a budget resolution is not equivalent to a local law.

2. No, because repeals or modifications of legislation by implication are disfavored, and the City Council did not manifest an intent to amend the Charter’s IBO provisions.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the City Charter mandated the establishment of the IBO, and the City Council did not express an intent to amend the Charter through proper legislative channels. The Court cited Matter of Gallagher v Regan, 42 NY2d 230, 234, emphasizing that “’a legislative act of equal dignity and import’” is required to modify a statute, and “'[n]othing less than another statute will suffice.’” Additionally, the Court noted that section 32 of the New York City Charter requires local laws to embrace only one subject, which the budget modification and budget did not satisfy. The Court emphasized that repeals by implication are disfavored, stating that “[r]epeal or modification of legislation by implication is not favored in the law” (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 71 NY2d 186, 195). Because the City Council did not manifest an intent to amend the City Charter’s IBO provisions, the Court held that the budget actions did not implicitly amend the Charter. The Court affirmed that the lower courts had room to exercise their discretion in compelling respondents to comply with the IBO provisions and remitted the case to Supreme Court to propose a new timeframe for compliance.