Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1989–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Albany Area Builders Ass'n v. Town of Guilderlandgreen2 sentences2023Assn. v Town of Guilderland , 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989]). 1998Assn. v Town of Guilderland ( 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989]): “The preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers (see, Dougal v County of Suffolk, 65 NY2d 668 , affg on opn at 102 AD2d 531, 532 ; 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 15.20, at 101-104 [3d ed 1989]). | 7 | 8 |
Wambat Realty Corp. v. Stategreen2 sentences2024However, "[t]he preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers and embodies the untrammeled primacy of the [l]egislature to act . . . with respect to matters of State concern" ( Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene , 31 NY3d 601, 617 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 497 ). 2018Assn. v Town of Guilderland , 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989], quoting Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 497 [1977]). | 2 | 5 |
Cohen v. Board of Appealsgreen2 sentences2013Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989]; accord Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d 395, 400 [2003]). 2007However, the preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule power where the State has an overriding interest (M atter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d 395 [2003]). | 2 | 3 |
Garcia v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygienegreen2 sentences2024"A local law will be preempted either where there is a direct conflict with a state statute (conflict preemption) or where the legislature has indicated its intent to occupy the particular field (field preemption)" ( Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene , 31 NY3d at 617 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eric M. 2024However, "[t]he preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers and embodies the untrammeled primacy of the [l]egislature to act . . . with respect to matters of State concern" ( Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene , 31 NY3d 601, 617 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York , 41 NY2d 490, 497 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Town of Red Hook
green
2 sentences1998While localities have been invested with substantial powers both by affirmative grant and by restriction on State powers in matters of local concern, the overriding limitation of the preemption doctrine embodies ‘the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act * * * with respect to matters of State concern.’ (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 497 .) Preemption applies both in cases of express conflict between local and State law and in cases where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field (see, e.g., Matter of Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v New York City Dept 1996While localities have been invested with substantial powers both by affirmative grant and by restriction on State powers in matters of local concern, the overriding limitation of the preemption doctrine embodies 'the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act * * * with respect to matters of State concern.’ (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 497 .) Preemption applies both in cases of express conflict between local and State law and in cases where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field (see, e.g., Matter of Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v New York City Dept | 3 | 1989–1998 |
Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
green
2 sentences1998While localities have been invested with substantial powers both by affirmative grant and by restriction on State powers in matters of local concern, the overriding limitation of the preemption doctrine embodies ‘the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act * * * with respect to matters of State concern.’ (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 497 .) Preemption applies both in cases of express conflict between local and State law and in cases where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field (see, e.g., Matter of Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v New York City Dept 1996While localities have been invested with substantial powers both by affirmative grant and by restriction on State powers in matters of local concern, the overriding limitation of the preemption doctrine embodies 'the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act * * * with respect to matters of State concern.’ (Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490, 497 .) Preemption applies both in cases of express conflict between local and State law and in cases where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field (see, e.g., Matter of Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v New York City Dept | 3 | 1989–1998 |
Dougal v. County of Suffolk
green
2 sentences1998Assn. v Town of Guilderland ( 74 NY2d 372, 377 [1989]): “The preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers (see, Dougal v County of Suffolk, 65 NY2d 668 , affg on opn at 102 AD2d 531, 532 ; 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 15.20, at 101-104 [3d ed 1989]). 1996"The preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers (see, Dougal v County of Suffolk, 65 NY2d 668 , affg on opn at 102 AD2d 531, 532 ; 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 15.20, at 101-104 [3d ed 1989]). | 3 | 1989–1998 |
Norse Energy Corp. USA v. Town of Dryden
green
1 sentence2023"The doctrine of preemption, however, 'represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers' " and "[t]he Legislature may expressly state its intent to preempt, or it may do so by implication" ( Matter of Norse Energy Corp. USA v Town of Dryden , 108 AD3d 25 , 31 [3d Dept 2013], affd 23 NY3d 728 [2014], quoting Albany Area Bldrs. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wallach v. Town of Dryden
green
1 sentence2023"The doctrine of preemption, however, 'represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers' " and "[t]he Legislature may expressly state its intent to preempt, or it may do so by implication" ( Matter of Norse Energy Corp. USA v Town of Dryden , 108 AD3d 25 , 31 [3d Dept 2013], affd 23 NY3d 728 [2014], quoting Albany Area Bldrs. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Zuckerman v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2015(See Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980].) Regarding Superintendent Ballard’s preemption claims, the Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Cook
green
1 sentence1993Although the City of New York has broad power to preserve and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its inhabitants pursuant to the home rule provisions of the State Constitution (NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c] [ii] [10]), the Municipal Home Rule Law (art 2, § 10 [1] [ii] [a] [12]), and the New York City Charter § 28 (see, People v Cook, 34 NY2d 100 ), the preemption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on home rule powers. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.