New York Law Review

Tag: Matter of Taxpayers of Town of Highlands

  • Matter of Taxpayers of Town of Highlands v. Town of Highlands, 72 N.Y.2d 148 (1988): Legislative vs. Judicial Acts in Special Assessment Districts

    Matter of Taxpayers of Town of Highlands v. Town of Highlands, 72 N.Y.2d 148 (1988)

    When a legislature directly establishes the boundaries of a special assessment district, the act is considered legislative, and landowners are not constitutionally entitled to prior notice or a hearing; however, when the legislature delegates this power to a subordinate body, the act is considered judicial and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.

    Summary

    This case concerns a challenge to a special law passed by the New York State Legislature that redefined the boundaries of a sewer improvement district in the Town of Highlands. Petitioners argued that they were denied due process because they received no notice or hearing before the law was enacted. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling, holding that because the Legislature itself established the district boundaries, the act was legislative, and no prior notice or hearing was required. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where a subordinate body defines the boundaries, which requires due process protections.

    Facts

    In 1981, the Town of Highlands established a sewer improvement district. In 1983, the Town realized that the district boundaries were incorrectly drawn, splitting some properties. The Town sought a special law from the State Legislature to correct the boundaries, including the petitioners’ property fully within the district. The Legislature enacted Chapter 755 of the Laws of 1983 to redefine the boundaries. Subsequent public hearings addressed costs and assessments. Petitioners then challenged the assessment, claiming the legislation was invalid and the assessment disproportionate.

    Procedural History

    Petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding against the Town, challenging the assessment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, declaring the statute unconstitutional, reasoning petitioners were denied due process due to lack of notice and hearing prior to the statute’s enactment. The Town appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether landowners are entitled to notice and a hearing before the boundaries of an improvement district are fixed when the district boundaries are established directly by the state legislature.

    Holding

    No, because when a legislature directly establishes the boundaries of a special assessment district, the act is considered legislative, and landowners are not constitutionally entitled to prior notice or a hearing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals distinguished between legislative and judicial acts in the context of special assessment districts. When the legislature itself fixes the boundaries, it is a legislative act, and notice/hearing are not required. The Court reasoned that the Legislature is presumed to have made proper inquiry and conclusively determined the benefits to the land within the district. Quoting Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v Bradley, the court stated, “[T]he citizen has no constitutional right to any other or further hearing upon that question.” The court cited Embree v Kansas City Rd. Dist., stating, “A legislative act of this nature can be successfully called in question only when it is so devoid of any reasonable basis as to be essentially arbitrary and an abuse of power.”
    By contrast, when the legislature delegates boundary-setting to a subordinate body, it is a judicial-type inquiry, and landowners must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court distinguished the case from Stuart v Palmer, which involved a commission determining both the improvement area and the assessments. The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that the Town Board’s request to the Legislature was based on “illicitly conjured up” facts. The Court cited Municipal Home Rule Law § 40 and Legislative Law § 56, which preclude judicial review of the Legislature’s determination of necessity in enacting special laws pursuant to a home rule request. As the court stated, “[T]he enactment of a special law pursuant to NY Constitution, article IX, § 2 (b) (2) ‘shall be conclusive as to the facts that (1) a necessity as set forth in the request existed at the time of enactment and (2) that sufficient facts were set forth in such request to establish such necessity.’”