Brooks v. County of Onondaga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brooks v. County of Onondaga

167 A.D.2d 862

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 862 (Brooks v. County of Onondaga) 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

Brooks v. County of Onondaga, 167 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J. We add only that the amendment to article XIII, § 13 (a) of the NY Constitution, which, effective January 1, 1990, deleted therefrom the sentence "But the county shall never be made responsible for the acts of the sheriff”, should not be given retroactive effect. It is the general rule of construction that "constitutional provisions are to be construed as prospective only, unless a clear expression of intent to the contrary is found” (Matter of Ayman v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 9 NY2d 119, 125). Here, there is no indication in the legislative history of the amendment or in the amendment itself indicating that the amendment should be retroactively applied. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J. We add only that the amendment to article XIII, § 13 (a) of the NY Constitution, which, effective January 1, 1990, deleted therefrom the sentence "But the county shall never be made responsible for the acts of the sheriff”, should not be given retroactive effect. It is the general rule of construction that "constitutional provisions are to be construed as prospective only, unless a clear expression of intent to the contrary is found” (Matter of Ayman v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 9 NY2d 119, 125). Here, there is no indication in the legislative history of the amendment or in the amendment itself indicating that the amendment should be retroactively applied. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-county-of-onondaga-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack