 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CITY REPORT COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPELLANTS CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION MUNICIPAL HOME RULE HOME RULE LAW PROPOSITIONS RESPONDENT AMENDMENTS REVIEW MEMORANDUM APPELLATE DIVISION COSTS JUDGEMENT SUPREME COURT BALANCE COUNCIL MEMBER CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDGE SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES SIMONS TITONE BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CIPARICK CONCUR |
In the Matter of Sobeida Cruz, et al., Appellants, v. Joan C. Deierlein, et
al., Respondents
84 N.Y.2d 890, 644 N.E.2d 1347, 620 N.Y.S.2d 791 (1994).
October 27, 1994
2 No. 259 SSM 38 (1994 NY Int. 174) Decided October 27, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Steven Barshov, for appellants.
Submitted by Jay B. Hashmall, for individual respondent.
Submitted by Christina Lomolino, for respondent City.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs,
and the judgment and order of Supreme Court, Westchester County
reinstated. The Appellate Division concluded that the report of the
Charter Revision Commission of the City of Yonkers failed to comply
with the requirements of Municipal Home Rule Law § 36(5)(a). This
conclusion is erroneous. The seven- page single-spaced report details
the history of the Commission's formation, giving a background and
overview of the two charter amendment propositions that the Commission
ultimately adopted -- including a discussion of its review of the
proposed Local Laws considered by the City Council on the issues
involved. The report also specifically states that the Charter
Revision Commission examined the balance of the charter, discussed
other amendments to the charter, including changing the years in the
term of City council member and City council president, staggering
council members' terms, changing the City Council President to a Vice
Mayor and other changes to the form and organization of City
government. The report concludes that the Commission proposed no
changes to the balance of the charter at the time because those
portions of the charter required "significant further study". Rather
than propose a new Charter, therefore, the Commission proposed only
two amendments to the existing Charter (see generally, Municipal Home
Rule Law § 36(5)(b)). The report satisfied the requirements of
Municipal Home Rule Law § 36(5)(a). In light of this conclusion, we
need not reach petitioners' additional argument concerning the scope
of the City Clerk's power to substantively review the report of
Charter Revision Commission upon its filing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
