Better Long Island v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Better Long Island v. County of Suffolk

243 A.D.2d 560, 663 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9865

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 560 (Better Long Island v. County of Suffolk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Better Long Island v. County of Suffolk, 243 A.D.2d 560, 663 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Election Law § 16-104 (4), inter alia, to enjoin the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Board of Elections from placing the proposition “Shall a Charter Law Directing Suffolk County to Actively Oppose the LILCOZLIPA Takeover Plan, Be Approved?”, on the ballot for the general election to be held on November 4, 1997, (1) the County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Board of Elections, Suffolk County Legislature, and the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature, appeal from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 1, 1997, which, inter alia, enjoined the appellants from placing the proposition on the ballot and (2) [561]*561the Association for a Better Long Island and Desmond W.. Ryan, cross-appeal from so much of the order and judgment as declared that the “County of Suffolk has the legal authority to seek a referendum vote” on proposed amendments to the Suffolk County Charter.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the appellants’ claim that the proposed local law (see, Resolution No. 636-1997, adopting a “Charter Law Ensuring Truth and Honesty in LIPA/LILCO/BUG Transaction”) is the proper subject of a referendum (see, Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 [2] [f|; § 34 [4]; Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Giuliani, 228 AD2d 276; Brittain v Village of Liverpool, 172 Misc 2d 201). The proposed local law purports to amend certain sections of the Suffolk County Charter by obligating County officials to take legal action in certain situations involving a proposed merger plan. However, the referendum question which the appellants seek to place on the ballot is misleading and does not indicate “in a clear and coherent manner * * * the subject matter” of the proposed local law (Election Law § 4-108 [2]).

In view of our decision, we need not reach the question of whether or not this is a purely advisory referendum. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Election Law § 16-104 (4), inter alia, to enjoin the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Board of Elections from placing the proposition “Shall a Charter Law Directing Suffolk County to Actively Oppose the LILCOZLIPA Takeover Plan, Be Approved?”, on the ballot for the general election to be held on November 4, 1997, (1) the County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Board of Elections, Suffolk County Legislature, and the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature, appeal from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 1, 1997, which, inter alia, enjoined the appellants from placing the proposition on the ballot and (2) [561]*561the Association for a Better Long Island and Desmond W.. Ryan, cross-appeal from so much of the order and judgment as declared that the “County of Suffolk has the legal authority to seek a referendum vote” on proposed amendments to the Suffolk County Charter.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the appellants’ claim that the proposed local law (see, Resolution No. 636-1997, adopting a “Charter Law Ensuring Truth and Honesty in LIPA/LILCO/BUG Transaction”) is the proper subject of a referendum (see, Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 [2] [f|; § 34 [4]; Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Giuliani, 228 AD2d 276; Brittain v Village of Liverpool, 172 Misc 2d 201). The proposed local law purports to amend certain sections of the Suffolk County Charter by obligating County officials to take legal action in certain situations involving a proposed merger plan. However, the referendum question which the appellants seek to place on the ballot is misleading and does not indicate “in a clear and coherent manner * * * the subject matter” of the proposed local law (Election Law § 4-108 [2]).

In view of our decision, we need not reach the question of whether or not this is a purely advisory referendum. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 560, 663 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/better-long-island-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack