Matter of Curcio v. Heitman, 84 N.Y.2d 896 (1994)

A report by a Charter Revision Commission satisfies the requirements of Municipal Home Rule Law § 36 (5)(a) when it details the history of the Commission’s formation, provides a background and overview of adopted Charter amendment propositions, and specifically states the Commission’s examination of the Charter’s balance and the reasons for proposing only specific amendments rather than a new charter.

Summary

This case concerns whether the report of the Charter Revision Commission of the City of Yonkers complied with Municipal Home Rule Law §36 (5)(a). The Court of Appeals found that the report, which detailed the commission’s history, gave an overview of the adopted charter amendments, and explained why the commission only proposed specific amendments instead of a full charter revision, satisfied the statutory requirements. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the Supreme Court’s judgment and order, holding that the report was sufficient because it explained the commission’s process and rationale for its recommendations.

Facts

The Charter Revision Commission of the City of Yonkers was formed to consider amendments to the City Charter. The Commission ultimately adopted two Charter amendment propositions and produced a seven-page report detailing its activities. The report included the Commission’s history, background, and overview of the two Charter amendment propositions. It also stated that the Commission examined the balance of the Charter and discussed other potential amendments, such as changes to the terms of City Council members and the City Council President. The Commission ultimately proposed only two amendments, citing the need for “significant further study” before proposing further changes to the Charter.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially ruled in favor of the Charter Revision Commission. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, concluding that the report of the Charter Revision Commission failed to comply with the requirements of Municipal Home Rule Law §36 (5)(a). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County.

Issue(s)

Whether the report of the Charter Revision Commission of the City of Yonkers complied with the requirements of Municipal Home Rule Law §36 (5)(a).

Holding

Yes, because the seven-page, single-spaced report details the history of the Commission’s formation, giving a background and overview of the two Charter amendment propositions that the Commission ultimately adopted, including a discussion of its review of the proposed Local Laws considered by the City Council on the issues involved, and specifically states that the Charter Revision Commission examined the balance of the Charter, discussed other amendments to the Charter, and concluded that the Commission proposed no changes to the balance of the Charter at the time because those portions of the Charter required “significant further study.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the report failed to comply with Municipal Home Rule Law §36 (5)(a). The Court emphasized the level of detail in the report, noting that it addressed the history of the commission, provided an overview of the charter amendments, and detailed its review of the proposed local laws. The report explained the commission’s rationale for proposing only two amendments at that time. The court directly quoted the report noting that the Commission proposed no changes to the balance of the Charter at the time because those portions of the Charter required “significant further study.” (see generally, Municipal Home Rule Law § 36 [5] [b]). The Court reasoned that because the commission did not propose a new charter, the report was sufficient in explaining the proposed amendments, rather than a full review of the entire charter.