LaBella v. Marzuullo, 63 N.Y.2d 650 (1984)

When a mayor resigns, the powers and duties of that office automatically transfer to the city council president according to General City Law § 2-a, creating no vacancy and superseding conflicting city charter provisions.

Summary

This case addresses the succession of mayoral power in a New York city following the mayor’s resignation. The Court of Appeals determined that General City Law § 2-a dictates that the city council president automatically assumes the powers and duties of the mayor upon resignation, thereby filling the office immediately. This statute preempts any conflicting provisions within the city’s charter regarding mayoral succession. The Court emphasized the state’s authority in matters of statewide significance and the proper exercise of legislative power in enacting § 2-a.

Facts

Following the resignation of the city’s mayor, a dispute arose concerning who should succeed to the office. The city charter contained provisions regarding mayoral succession that conflicted with the state’s General City Law § 2-a. The central question was whether the city charter or the state law governed the succession process.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court, likely as a declaratory judgment action to determine the rightful successor to the mayoral office. The Appellate Division rendered a decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether General City Law § 2-a governs mayoral succession upon resignation, thereby immediately vesting the powers and duties of the office in the city council president, or whether the city’s charter provisions dictate the succession process.

Holding

Yes, General City Law § 2-a governs mayoral succession upon resignation because the statute operates immediately, creates no vacancy, and represents a proper exercise of state legislative power in an area of statewide concern.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that General City Law § 2-a is clear and unambiguous in its directive that the powers and duties of the mayoral office devolve upon the president of the city council immediately upon the mayor’s resignation. The court stated that “By operation of the statute, no vacancy in the office of Mayor ever existed.” The court emphasized the state legislature’s authority to enact laws concerning matters of statewide significance. The Court cited previous decisions, including Matter of Burns v Kinley, 60 NY2d 40, 41, reaffirming the principle that General City Law § 2-a dictates mayoral succession. The court rejected any argument that the city charter should prevail, stating that state law takes precedence. The decision underscores the principle of state supremacy in matters not exclusively reserved for local governments, rejecting any home rule implications where a state law addresses a statewide concern. The Court noted, “Section 2-a of the General City Law is a proper exercise of legislative power in an area of State-wide significance and, therefore, does not implicate the home rule provisions of article IX of the Constitution.”