New York Law Review

Tag: City of Yonkers

  • Matter of Curcio v. Heitman, 84 N.Y.2d 896 (1994): Sufficiency of Charter Revision Commission Report

    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.

  • Home News & Times v. City of Yonkers, 26 N.Y.2d 272 (1970): Statutory Requirements for Official Newspaper Designation

    Home News & Times v. City of Yonkers, 26 N.Y.2d 272 (1970)

    When designating official newspapers, a municipality must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements regarding voting procedures and political representation, ensuring each member votes for only one paper and that the newspapers with the highest votes are selected.

    Summary

    This case concerns the City of Yonkers’ designation of official newspapers, specifically challenging the process by which the Common Council selected the Herald-Statesman (a Republican daily) and The Record of Yonkers (a Democratic weekly). The Home News and Times, another Democratic weekly, argued that the Council violated Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law. The Court of Appeals held that the Council failed to comply with the statute because the Herald-Statesman did not receive any direct votes, and the voting process potentially allowed Republican councilmembers to influence the selection of a Democratic newspaper, undermining the statute’s intent for political diversity in the selection process. The court emphasized the importance of literal compliance with the statute.

    Facts

    The City of Yonkers needed to designate two official newspapers. The candidates were: the Home News and Times (Democratic weekly), The Record of Yonkers (Democratic weekly), and the Herald-Statesman (Republican daily). The mayor sought an opinion from the corporation counsel regarding the voting procedure. The corporation counsel advised that a formal vote was only needed for the second newspaper because the Herald-Statesman was the only daily. During the vote, all 13 council members voted for the two weeklies: The Record of Yonkers received seven votes, and the Home News and Times received six votes. The mayor then announced the Herald-Statesman and The Record of Yonkers as the official newspapers.

    Procedural History

    The Home News and Times challenged the designation. The lower courts upheld the city’s designation, finding that the legislative goal of political diversity was achieved. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, remitting the matter to Special Term for further proceedings.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Common Council of the City of Yonkers complied with Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law when it designated the Herald-Statesman and The Record of Yonkers as the official newspapers, considering that the Herald-Statesman received no direct votes and the voting process may have allowed Republican councilmembers to influence the selection of a Democratic newspaper?

    Holding

    No, because the Common Council did not comply with Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law. The Herald-Statesman received no direct votes, and the voting process potentially allowed Republican councilmembers to influence the selection of a Democratic newspaper, undermining the statute’s intent.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of adhering to the explicit terms of Section 43 of the Second Class Cities Law, which requires that the two newspapers with the highest number of votes be designated as official papers. The court found that the Herald-Statesman, receiving no votes, did not meet this requirement. The court rejected the argument that tacit approval or the corporation counsel’s opinion could substitute for affirmative action by the Council. Further, the court noted the statute implies that the designation of a paper claiming adherence to a particular party should be determined by council members of that party; Republican votes may have provided the margin to select one Democratic paper over another. The court quoted People ex rel. Argus Co. v. Bresler, stating, “It is the expression of a legislative intent to provide for the selection of an official newspaper by a minority of the common council and, for the effectuation of such a purpose, each alderman was permitted to vote for only one paper.” The court concluded that there was no ambiguity in the statute to warrant the lower courts’ departure from its explicit terms and that literal compliance is often the better course, even at the cost of a stalemate.