Summary
In Elfvin v. City of Buffalo, 19 N.Y.2d 280 (1967), the Court held that a section of a city charter enacted by local law but derived from a prior charter containing similar provisions enacted by the State Legislature was to be treated as an act of the State Legislature.
Summary of this case from Opn. No. 1976-243Opinion
Argued March 14, 1967
Decided March 14, 1967
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, JOHN F. DWYER, J.
Thornton G. Edwards for appellant.
Anthony Manguso, Corporation Counsel, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM. The Local Law (Buffalo City Charter, § 411) authorizing the council to "submit to the electors of the city for determination by them" at an election "any * * * questions * * * upon which the council has power to act" is a valid statute and does not, in terms, violate the specifications of article IX of the New York Constitution, or the legislative implementation of the Home Rule provisions of the Constitution. This charter provision, enacted in 1927, stems in substantial part from an amendment to the earlier Buffalo charter enacted in 1920 by the Legislature. The resolution of the council submitting the question to the voters is in literal conformity with section 411. It submits a question for determination concerning which the council has power to act. In view of the historical development in New York of methods by which powers of local government may be exercised and the rather widespread use of referenda related to those powers as part of a developing growth of modern local government, it ought not to be held on this record that the challenged resolution is invalid as an abdication of local legislative responsibility.
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
The difficulty with the validity of this resolution of the Buffalo City Council arises from the circumstance that the council takes no position in the resolution on whether there should be a city sales tax, does not adopt a city sales tax subject to approval by the electorate, but divests itself of legislative judgment by transferring its powers and responsibilities in this regard to the electorate. If it be assumed that section 411 of the Buffalo City Charter was adopted as a Local Law, with the same force and effect as though it were a State statute, even the Legislature could not adopt a law conditioned to take effect as a law upon direct vote of the people ( Barto v. Himrod, 8 N.Y. 483; People ex rel. Unger v. Kennedy, 207 N.Y. 533; Mills v. Sweeney, 219 N.Y. 213; Matter of McCabe v. Voorhis, 243 N.Y. 401). Section 411 of the City Charter states that, after the people vote, the council shall take such action as may be made necessary by such determination of the electors. This means that by the resolution, whose validity is in question, the council has reduced itself to act as an automation. The State Legislature could not place itself in such a position in the discharge of its legislative responsibilities. The same is true with reference to the City Council which cannot do, under the powers conferred upon it by the Home Rule Amendment to the State Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law, what the Legislature could not do itself.
In McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed., Vol. 5), it is said at paragraph 16.50 that "an unlimited initiative and referendum provision is unconstitutional."
The order appealed from should be reversed, the resolution of the Buffalo City Council submitting to the voters the question of the levy of a Buffalo City sales tax should be declared invalid and the special election upon that proposition enjoined.
Chief Judge FULD and Judges BERGAN, BREITEL, GABRIELLI, STREITfn_ and COOKEfn_ concur in memorandum; Judge VAN VOORHIS dissents in an opinion.
Designated pursuant to section 2 of article VI of the State Constitution in the temporary absence of Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI and KEATING.
Order affirmed.