term limits rule in New York

2025The parties dispute whether a memorandum of understanding (MOU) governing the Town's review of plaintiff's zoning petition is unenforceable under the term limits doctrine ( see generally Matter of Karedes v Colella , 100 NY2d 45 [2003]).

2025"The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so" ( Karedes , 100 NY2d at 50, citing Morin v Foster , 45 NY2d 287, 293 [1978]).

2025"The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so" ( Karedes , 100 NY2d at 50, citing Morin v Foster , 45 NY2d 287, 293 [1978]).

2025The term limits doctrine reaches only "matters relating to governmental or legislative functions" ( Morin , 45 NY2d at 293) and does not apply where the municipality is "acting in its proprietary capacity" ( see Karedes , 100 NY2d at 51 [term limits doctrine inapplicable where municipality "was acting in its proprietary capacity in contracting . . . for management of (its golf club)"]).

2024The MOU Violates the Term Limits Rule Accordingly, where as here, there is no specific statutory authorization to bind successor boards, a board may not contractually bind successor boards with regard to the process of reaching a determination regarding a zoning change, which is clearly a governmental function; such a contract violates the term limits rule and is "void as against public policy" ( Matter of City of Utica Urban Renewal Agency v Doyle , 66 AD3d at 1496 ; see Quigley v City of Oswego , 71 AD2d at 795 ).

2013More recently, we applied the term limits rule to an urban renewal agency (see Matter of City of Utica Urban Renewal Agency v Doyle, 66 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2009]), and we can perceive no reason why a housing authority should be treated differently from such an agency.

2013Auth. ( 130 AD2d 913, 914-915 [1987]), the term limits rule was applied to the Binghamton Housing Authority, which is legally indistinguishable from defendant herein.

2013Auth. ( 130 AD2d 913, 914-915 [1987]), the term limits rule was applied to the Binghamton Housing Authority, which is legally indistinguishable from defendant herein.

2025Town Law § 64 (6) is a general enabling statute, entitled "General powers of town boards," authorizing town boards to "award contracts for any of the purposes authorized by law." Other localities' enabling statutes use similarly broad language: for example, Second Class Cities Law § 3 (4) and Village Law § 1-102 (5) confer the power "[t]o contract and be contracted with." If such statutes sufficed to "specifically authorize" contracts otherwise violating the term limits doctrine, then in effect, the doctrine would not apply to any contracts entered into by these municipal entities, which has n

2025Town Law § 64 (6) is a general enabling statute, entitled "General powers of town boards," authorizing town boards to "award contracts for any of the purposes authorized by law." Other localities' enabling statutes use similarly broad language: for example, Second Class Cities Law § 3 (4) and Village Law § 1-102 (5) confer the power "[t]o contract and be contracted with." If such statutes sufficed to "specifically authorize" contracts otherwise violating the term limits doctrine, then in effect, the doctrine would not apply to any contracts entered into by these municipal entities, which has n

2025Footnote 2: We do not opine on whether, in a case where the proprietary-governmental "dichotomy [is] unworkable," a " 'balancing of public interests' analytic framework" may inform whether the term limits doctrine reaches the function at issue ( Karedes , 100 NY2d at 50, quoting Matter of County of Monroe (City of Rochester) , 72 NY2d 338, 341 [1988] [using such a balancing test to resolve "a conflict between the zoning ordinance of one political unit and the statutory authority of another (political) unit to perform (the) designated public function" of operating a municipal airport]).

2025Footnote 2: We do not opine on whether, in a case where the proprietary-governmental "dichotomy [is] unworkable," a " 'balancing of public interests' analytic framework" may inform whether the term limits doctrine reaches the function at issue ( Karedes , 100 NY2d at 50 , quoting Matter of County of Monroe (City of Rochester) , 72 NY2d 338, 341 [1988] [using such a balancing test to resolve "a conflict between the zoning ordinance of one political unit and the statutory authority of another (political) unit to perform (the) designated public function" of operating a municipal airport]).

2013School Dist. v Sobol, 154 AD2d 777, 778-779 [1989], lv dismissed lb NY2d 978 [1990]).

2013School Dist. v Sobol, 154 AD2d 777, 778-779 [1989], lv dismissed lb NY2d 978 [1990]).

2025Town Law § 64 (6) is a general enabling statute, entitled "General powers of town boards," authorizing town boards to "award contracts for any of the purposes authorized by law." Other localities' enabling statutes use similarly broad language: for example, Second Class Cities Law § 3 (4) and Village Law § 1-102 (5) confer the power "[t]o contract and be contracted with." If such statutes sufficed to "specifically authorize" contracts otherwise violating the term limits doctrine, then in effect, the doctrine would not apply to any contracts entered into by these municipal entities, which has n

2025Town Law § 64 (6) is a general enabling statute, entitled "General powers of town boards," authorizing town boards to "award contracts for any of the purposes authorized by law." Other localities' enabling statutes use similarly broad language: for example, Second Class Cities Law § 3 (4) and Village Law § 1-102 (5) confer the power "[t]o contract and be contracted with." If such statutes sufficed to "specifically authorize" contracts otherwise violating the term limits doctrine, then in effect, the doctrine would not apply to any contracts entered into by these municipal entities, which has n

2025The U.S. Supreme Court has warned that even where one legislature may bind its successor "such contracts could become a threat to the sovereign responsibilities of state governments" ( United States v Winstar Corp. , 518 US 839, 874 [1996]).

2025The U.S. Supreme Court has warned that even where one legislature may bind its successor "such contracts could become a threat to the sovereign responsibilities of state governments" ( United States v Winstar Corp. , 518 US 839, 874 [1996]).

2024The Fourth Department opined that the contract was unenforceable under the term limits rule, "because defendant's Board exercised governmental powers when it approved the Agreement with plaintiff in January 2000, and because the 10-year term of the Agreement exceeded the term of all members of the Board who approved the Agreement" ( id. at 1337).

2011Here, any determination as to whether an arbitrator could not grant any relief without violating public policy on the ground that the employment agreement violated the term limits rule could not be made at this stage in the proceeding without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis (see Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d at 418-419; Matter of Poughkeepsie Chevrolet, Inc. v Jeff Weaver’s 96 Hour Super Sale, Inc., 8 AD3d at 576 ; see generally Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d at 284 ).

2011Here, any determination as to whether an arbitrator could not grant any relief without violating public policy on the ground that the employment agreement violated the term limits rule could not be made at this stage in the proceeding without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis (see Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d at 418-419; Matter of Poughkeepsie Chevrolet, Inc. v Jeff Weaver’s 96 Hour Super Sale, Inc., 8 AD3d at 576 ; see generally Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d at 284 ).

2011Here, any determination as to whether an arbitrator could not grant any relief without violating public policy on the ground that the employment agreement violated the term limits rule could not be made at this stage in the proceeding without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis (see Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d at 418-419; Matter of Poughkeepsie Chevrolet, Inc. v Jeff Weaver’s 96 Hour Super Sale, Inc., 8 AD3d at 576 ; see generally Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d at 284 ).

2011Here, any determination as to whether an arbitrator could not grant any relief without violating public policy on the ground that the employment agreement violated the term limits rule could not be made at this stage in the proceeding without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis (see Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d at 418-419; Matter of Poughkeepsie Chevrolet, Inc. v Jeff Weaver’s 96 Hour Super Sale, Inc., 8 AD3d at 576 ; see generally Matter of City of New York v Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 95 NY2d at 284 ).

2011An agreement that violates the term limits rule is against public policy (see Matter of City of Utica Urban Renewal Agency v Doyle, 66 AD3d 1495 [2009]; Karedes v Village of Endicott, 297 AD2d 413, 415 [2002]).