Pero v. City of Batavia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pero v. City of Batavia

99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16932

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 668 (Pero v. City of Batavia) 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

Pero v. City of Batavia, 99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and judgment granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term declared that Local Law No. 4 of 1980 of the City of Batavia was a valid exercise of legislative authority. This local law replaced the examining board of plumbers established under section 40-a of the General City Law, which possessed regulatory powers and other duties (see General City Law, §44), with a local board endowed with advisory powers only; Special Term held that section 40-a of the General City Law is a special law and thus does not render the local law invalid under article IX (§ 2, subd [c]) of the New York State Constitution or section 10 (subd 1, par [ii]) of the Municipal Home Rule Law. We agree that [669]*669section 40-a of the General City Law is not a general law, because it is not applicable to all cities and does not satisfy the dictates of the statute (see General City Law, § 57; Uniformed Firefighters Assn, v City of New York, 50 NY2d 85,90-91; cf. Matter ofRadich v Council of City of Lackawanna, 93 AD2d 559, 564, affd 61 NY2d 652; Rozler v Franger, 61 AD2d 46, 51, affd 46 NY2d 760). Nevertheless, we find Local Law No. 4 invalid. Regulation of the plumbing trade is related to public health and is a matter of State-wide concern not within the property, affairs or government of local municipalities (see Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467, 476). The State Legislature by mandating the appointment of a board of plumbing examiners under section 40-a of the General City Law has restricted the adoption of any local law governing the same subject matter. In view of this restriction, local legislation inconsistent with section 40-a of the General City Law was not authorized (NY Const, art IX, § 2, subd c, par [ii], cl [10]; Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10, subd 1, par [ii], cl a, subcl [12]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Cicoria, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and judgment granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term declared that Local Law No. 4 of 1980 of the City of Batavia was a valid exercise of legislative authority. This local law replaced the examining board of plumbers established under section 40-a of the General City Law, which possessed regulatory powers and other duties (see General City Law, §44), with a local board endowed with advisory powers only; Special Term held that section 40-a of the General City Law is a special law and thus does not render the local law invalid under article IX (§ 2, subd [c]) of the New York State Constitution or section 10 (subd 1, par [ii]) of the Municipal Home Rule Law. We agree that [669]*669section 40-a of the General City Law is not a general law, because it is not applicable to all cities and does not satisfy the dictates of the statute (see General City Law, § 57; Uniformed Firefighters Assn, v City of New York, 50 NY2d 85,90-91; cf. Matter ofRadich v Council of City of Lackawanna, 93 AD2d 559, 564, affd 61 NY2d 652; Rozler v Franger, 61 AD2d 46, 51, affd 46 NY2d 760). Nevertheless, we find Local Law No. 4 invalid. Regulation of the plumbing trade is related to public health and is a matter of State-wide concern not within the property, affairs or government of local municipalities (see Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467, 476). The State Legislature by mandating the appointment of a board of plumbing examiners under section 40-a of the General City Law has restricted the adoption of any local law governing the same subject matter. In view of this restriction, local legislation inconsistent with section 40-a of the General City Law was not authorized (NY Const, art IX, § 2, subd c, par [ii], cl [10]; Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10, subd 1, par [ii], cl a, subcl [12]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Cicoria, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pero-v-city-of-batavia-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack