Summary
holding that County Law § 400 supersedes inconsistent local law in a noncharter county relating to filling of vacancy in office of District Attorney
Summary of this case from Baranello v. Suffolk CountyOpinion
Decided June 9, 1983
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, DANIEL H. PRIOR, JR., J.
Robert J. Nicholson, County Attorney, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Lawrence L. Doolittle of counsel), for respondent.
James G. Sweeney, County Attorney, for New York State County Attorneys Association, amicus curiae.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice JOHN T. CASEY at the Appellate Division, except that we express no view on the question of venue, which issue has been apparently abandoned by the parties. We note, in addition, that notwithstanding the fact that the appeal has been rendered moot by the election of a District Attorney, we deem it appropriate to reach the merits because of the substantial importance and recurring nature of the issue presented.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.