home rule in New York

2025Although the home rule amendments to the State Constitution were generally "intended to expand and secure the powers enjoyed by local governments" ( Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 496 [1977]) and "grant[ ] increasingly greater autonomy to local governments" ( Matter of Kelley v McGee , 57 NY2d 522, 535 [1982]), the Legislature also included in Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 a list of "[l]imitations and restrictions" on the powers of counties to prepare, adopt and amend their charters, and the EYEL amends that list of limitations and restrictions.

2024Considering that the home rule provisions in article IX serve to provide local governments with "autonomy" based on the "recognition that essentially local problems should be dealt with locally" ( Matter of Kelley v McGee , 57 NY2d at 535 ) and that "the powers delegated to local governments [therein] shall be liberally construed" in their favor ( Matter of Baldwin Union Free Sch.

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the “difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations” (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of lslip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). 4 Chief Judge Cardozo’s concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574, remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State and lo

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the "difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations" ( Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). [4] Chief Judge Cardozo's concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574 , remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State an

2019Footnote 6: For this reason, the State Constitution's Home Rule provision (article IX, § 2[b][2]), which protects a municipality from State encroachment and interference with its "property, affairs or government" absent a home rule message, has no application to the instant dispute ( see City of New York v Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., 89 NY2d 380 [1996]).

2013Notably, however, “the home rule provisions of article IX do not operate to restrict the Legislature in acting upon matters of [s]tate concern” (Matter of Kelley v McGee, 57 NY2d 522, 538 [1982]; see City of New York v Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., 89 NY2d 380, 389 [1996]; Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 285 AD2d 52, 55-56 [2001], mod 97 NY2d 378 [2001]).

2012Thus, a special law that relates to the property, affairs or government of a locality is constitutional only if enacted upon a home rule message or the provision bears a direct and reasonable relationship to a ‘substantial State concern’ ” ( 97 NY2d at 386 [citations omitted]; see City of New York v State of New York, 94 NY2d 577, 591-592 [2000]; Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 56 [1984]).

2012Thus, a special law that relates to the property, affairs or government of a locality is constitutional only if enacted upon a home rule message or the provision bears a direct and reasonable relationship to a ‘substantial State concern’ ” ( 97 NY2d at 386 [citations omitted]; see City of New York v State of New York, 94 NY2d 577, 591-592 [2000]; Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 56 [1984]).

2024In addition, even assuming that the law was a special law, an exception to the home rule message requirement applies in cases such as this one, where the law is reasonably related to a matter of substantial state concern ( see Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v Smith , 21 NY3d 309, 313-319 [2013]; see also Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of City of NY v City of New York ("PBA II") , 97 NY2d 378, 386 [2001]; Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 495-498 [1977]).

2013Regardless of whether a special law such as the MTA Employer Tax Law is a law relating to the property, affairs, or government of any local government and, thus, would otherwise require a home rule message, “[a] recognized exception to the home rule message requirement exists when a special law serves a substantial State concern” (Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 97 NY2d 378, 386 [2001]).

2025Although the home rule amendments to the State Constitution were generally "intended to expand and secure the powers enjoyed by local governments" ( Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 496 [1977]) and "grant[ ] increasingly greater autonomy to local governments" ( Matter of Kelley v McGee , 57 NY2d 522, 535 [1982]), the Legislature also included in Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 a list of "[l]imitations and restrictions" on the powers of counties to prepare, adopt and amend their charters, and the EYEL amends that list of limitations and restrictions.

2024In addition, even assuming that the law was a special law, an exception to the home rule message requirement applies in cases such as this one, where the law is reasonably related to a matter of substantial state concern ( see Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v Smith , 21 NY3d 309, 313-319 [2013]; see also Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of City of NY v City of New York ("PBA II") , 97 NY2d 378, 386 [2001]; Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 495-498 [1977]).

2025Corp. v County of Suffolk , 71 NY2d 91, 97 [1987] [citations omitted]; see New York State Club Assn. v City of New York , 69 NY2d 211, 221-222 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]; Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia , 51 NY2d 679, 683 [1980]).

1999The home rule provision of NY Constitution, article IX, § 2, cl (c) gives local governments broad police powers relating to the welfare of their citizens (New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211, 217 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]).

2015Given the sharply conflicting proof on this key factual issue at trial and the testimony by police regarding the issue on behalf of the People, defendant should have been permitted to have her expert testify. * We further note that, despite defendant’s request, County Court gave a charge on the justification defense that was inconsistent with the holding in People v Jones ( 3 NY3d 491, 494 [2004] [expressly finding error where, as here, the trial court found it preferable “to avoid any confusion on the part of the jury by not mentioning the duty to retreat at all, as opposed to mentioning a ge

2008In any event, even if the failure to charge down constituted error, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Gray, 232 AD2d 179, 179-180 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1093 [1997]; see also People v Jones, 3 NY3d 491, 497 [2004] [overwhelming evidence disproved justification defense, and there was no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the court given the requested instruction on the home exception to the duty to retreat]).

2012Thus, a special law that relates to the property, affairs or government of a locality is constitutional only if enacted upon a home rule message or the provision bears a direct and reasonable relationship to a ‘substantial State concern’ ” ( 97 NY2d at 386 [citations omitted]; see City of New York v State of New York, 94 NY2d 577, 591-592 [2000]; Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 56 [1984]).

2012Thus, a special law that relates to the property, affairs or government of a locality is constitutional only if enacted upon a home rule message or the provision bears a direct and reasonable relationship to a ‘substantial State concern’ ” ( 97 NY2d at 386 [citations omitted]; see City of New York v State of New York, 94 NY2d 577, 591-592 [2000]; Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 56 [1984]).

2012We are guided by the requirement that courts must “exercise a large measure of restraint when considering” the bases for the legislature’s choices concerning the counties placed in each tier of the classification and the specific monetary thresholds for each tier (Hotel Dorset Co., 46 NY2d at 369 ).

1996In analyzing the City’s Home Rule challenge one must be mindful that enactments of the Legislature, a co-equal branch of government, are presumed to be constitutional and those challenging such laws bear a heavy burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt (City of New York v State of New York, 76 NY2d 479, 485 [1990]; Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources, 46 NY2d 358, 370 [1978]).

2022Footnotes Footnote 1: The home exception set forth in Penal Law § 265.03 (3), which provides that possession of a loaded firearm within one's home or business does not constitute a violation of that subdivision, is inapplicable to defendant, as he has been previously convicted of a crime ( see People v Jones , 22 NY3d 53, 57-59 [2013]).

2019Footnotes Footnote 1: The home exception embodied in Penal Law § 265.03 (3), which provides that possession of a loaded firearm within one's own home generally does not constitute a violation of that subdivision, is inapplicable to defendant, given that he has been previously convicted of a crime ( see People v Jones , 22 NY3d 53, 57-59 [2013]; see also Penal Law § 265.02 [1]).

1996The City challenged the constitutionality of chapter 773, contending that it affected "the property, affairs or government” of the City (NY Const, art IX, § 2 [b] [2]) and therefore required a home rule message under the State Constitution (see, City of New York v State of New York, 158 AD2d 169 , affd 76 NY2d 479 ).

1996On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed but, finding it "unnecessary and premature” to address the issue, expressly declined to determine whether genuine secession legislation would require a home rule message (City of New York v State of New York, 76 NY2d 479, 484 , supra).

2024Dist. v County of Nassau , 22 NY3d at 620 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]), the Court of Appeals has stated that "[p]erhaps the most significant delegation of state legislative authority is embodied in article IX of the Constitution, the home rule article" ( id. ).

2024Dist. v County of Nassau , 22 NY3d at 620 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]), the Court of Appeals has stated that "[p]erhaps the most significant delegation of state legislative authority is embodied in article IX of the Constitution, the home rule article" ( id. ).

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the “difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations” (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of lslip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). 4 Chief Judge Cardozo’s concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574, remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State and lo

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the "difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations" ( Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). [4] Chief Judge Cardozo's concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574 , remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State an

2025Corp. v County of Suffolk , 71 NY2d 91, 97 [1987] [citations omitted]; see New York State Club Assn. v City of New York , 69 NY2d 211, 221-222 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]; Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia , 51 NY2d 679, 683 [1980]).

1999The home rule provision of NY Constitution, article IX, § 2, cl (c) gives local governments broad police powers relating to the welfare of their citizens (New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211, 217 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]).

2025Corp. v County of Suffolk , 71 NY2d 91, 97 [1987] [citations omitted]; see New York State Club Assn. v City of New York , 69 NY2d 211, 221-222 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]; Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia , 51 NY2d 679, 683 [1980]).

2025Corp. v County of Suffolk , 71 NY2d 91, 97 [1987] [citations omitted]; see New York State Club Assn. v City of New York , 69 NY2d 211, 221-222 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]; Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia , 51 NY2d 679, 683 [1980]).

2017To date, we have identified a limited number of situations presenting such special circumstances, such as where a public entity is "vested with an entitlement to a specific fund by a statute" and the challenged statute adversely affects its interest in the fund ( Matter of Town of Moreau, 142 A.D.2d at 865 , 531 N.Y.S.2d 61 ; accord **553 City of New York, 86 N.Y.2d at 291 -292 , 631 N.Y.S.2d 553 , 655 N.E.2d 649 ; County of Rensselaer v. Regan, 173 A.D.2d 37 , 578 N.Y.S.2d 274 [3d Dept.1991], affd. 80 N.Y.2d 988 , 592 N.Y.S.2d 646 , 607 N.E.2d 793 [1992] ), where a state statute impinges on a

2017To date, we have identified a limited number of situations presenting such special circumstances, such as where a public entity is "vested with an entitlement to a specific fund by a statute" and the challenged statute adversely affects its interest in the fund ( Matter of Town of Moreau, 142 A.D.2d at 865 , 531 N.Y.S.2d 61 ; accord **553 City of New York, 86 N.Y.2d at 291 -292 , 631 N.Y.S.2d 553 , 655 N.E.2d 649 ; County of Rensselaer v. Regan, 173 A.D.2d 37 , 578 N.Y.S.2d 274 [3d Dept.1991], affd. 80 N.Y.2d 988 , 592 N.Y.S.2d 646 , 607 N.E.2d 793 [1992] ), where a state statute impinges on a

2015Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989], quoting Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 497 [1977]).

2014Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989] [internal quotation marks, ellipses and citation omitted]).

2014Although that contention survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601 [1978]; People v Holmes, 101 AD3d 1632 , 1633 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; People v Crummell, 84 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 858 [2011]), it is without merit (see Jones, 22 NY3d at 60 ).

2014Although that contention survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601 [1978]; People v Holmes, 101 AD3d 1632 , 1633 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; People v Crummell, 84 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 858 [2011]), it is without merit (see Jones, 22 NY3d at 60 ).

2014Although that contention survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601 [1978]; People v Holmes, 101 AD3d 1632 , 1633 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; People v Crummell, 84 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 858 [2011]), it is without merit (see Jones, 22 NY3d at 60 ).

2014Although that contention survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601 [1978]; People v Holmes, 101 AD3d 1632 , 1633 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; People v Crummell, 84 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 858 [2011]), it is without merit (see Jones, 22 NY3d at 60 ).

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the “difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations” (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of lslip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). 4 Chief Judge Cardozo’s concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574, remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State and lo

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the "difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations" ( Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). [4] Chief Judge Cardozo's concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574 , remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State an

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the “difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations” (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of lslip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). 4 Chief Judge Cardozo’s concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574, remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State and lo

2000The path of home rule over the years has been controversial, reflecting the "difficult problem of furthering strong local government but leaving the [S]tate just as strong to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries, interests and motivations" ( Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 498 ; see, Matter of Town of Islip v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 50, 54-56 , quoted in Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 74 NY2d 423, 428 ). [4] Chief Judge Cardozo's concurrence in Adler v Deegan ( 251 NY 467 , rearg denied 252 NY 574 , remittitur amended by 252 NY 615 ) set the standard for balancing State an

1983Relying upon Uniformed Firefighters Assn. v City of New York ( 50 NY2d 85 ) and Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York ( 41 NY2d 490 ), the court reasoned that in areas of State-wide interest, the Legislature is free to act without being restricted by the municipal home rule provisions of the State Constitution, and that the home rule powers will not be implicated even where the resulting legislation also affects local concerns (supra, at p 538).

1982Home rule is simply not implicated when the Legislature acts in areas “other than the property, affairs or government of a local government”; under the limited meaning of this phrase, legislation of State import does not impinge upon municipal home rule simply because it touches matters that concern municipal affairs or property (see Uniformed Firefighters Assn. v City of New York, 50 NY2d 85 ; Whalen v Wagner, 4 NY2d 575 ; cf. Matter of Capareo v Kaplan, 20 AD2d 212 ).

2026Rather than address third party consent head-on, the dissent contends that New York v Harris (495 US 14 [1990]) bars application of the exclusionary rule here, relying on a passage which holds that attenuation analysis should not be employed where evidence is obtained "outside of [a defendant's] home . . . after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton " (dissenting op at 8, citing Harris , 495 US at 21).

2026Rather than address third party consent head-on, the dissent contends that New York v Harris (495 US 14 [1990]) bars application of the exclusionary rule here, relying on a passage which holds that attenuation analysis should not be employed where evidence is obtained "outside of [a defendant's] home . . . after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton " (dissenting op at 8, citing Harris , 495 US at 21).

1992The predecessor of the present home rule provision, providing that the Legislature could act in relation to the property, affairs or government of a city only by general laws which, in terms and in effect, applied alike to all cities, or upon a home rule request by the affected city, was construed in Johnson v Etkin, 279 N.Y. 1 (1938).

1991In a prior opinion of this office, we found that section 808 is not a general law within the home rule definition. 1986 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 100, citing Johnson v Etkin, 279 N.Y. 1 (1938).