field preemption doctrine in New York

2011Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d at 377; see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d 395, 401 [2003]; DJL Rest.

2010Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d at 377; see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d at 401 ; DJL Rest.

2011Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d at 377; see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d 395, 401 [2003]; DJL Rest.

2010Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d at 377; see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 NY2d at 401 ; DJL Rest.

2013Under the doctrine of field preemption, the enactment by the state legislature of a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a particular field is deemed to demonstrate an intent to preempt local laws regulating the same subject matter (see Sunrise Check Cashing & Payroll Servs., Inc., 91 AD3d at 135 ; Matter of Chwick , 81 AD3d at 169-170 ).

2011Under the doctrine of field preemption, “ ‘a local law regulating the same subject matter [as a State law] is deemed inconsistent with the State’s transcendent interest, whether or not the terms of the local law actually conflict with a State-wide statute’ ” (Matter of Chwick v Mulvey, 81 AD3d at 172 , quoting Albany Area Bldrs.

2016Conflict Preemption Conflict preemption occurs “where local laws prohibit what would be permissible under State law, or impose prerequisite *62 additional restrictions on rights under State law, so as to inhibit the operation of the State’s general laws” (Zakrzewska v New School, 14 NY3d 469, 480 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2016Under the doctrine of field preemption, a municipality is prohibited from exercising a police power "when the Legislature has restricted such an exercise by preempting the area of regulation" ( New York State Club Assn. v City of New York , 69 NY2d 211, 217 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]).

2016Under the doctrine of field preemption, a municipality is prohibited from exercising a police power “when the Legislature has restricted such an exercise by preempting the area of regulation” (New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211, 217 [1987], affd 487 US 1 [1988]).

2015Conservation, 71 NY2d 186, 193 [1988]).

2015Conservation, 71 NY2d 186, 193 [1988]).

2015The doctrine of field preemption "has limited utility where, as here, a perceived conflict between legislative policy and administrative action at the same level of government is at issue" (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1, 15 [1987]; see Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Department of Envtl.

2015The doctrine of field preemption “has limited utility where, as here, a perceived conflict between legislative policy and administrative action at the same level of government is at issue” (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1, 15 [1987]; see Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Department of Envtl.

2014(Id., citing Arizona v United States, 567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2492, 2500 [2012].)

2010Accordingly, without a “head-on collision” between the Penal Law and the amended ordinance, conflict preemption does not apply (Matter of Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 74 NY2d at 764). 10 Turning to the doctrine of field preemption, “a local law regulating the same subject matter [as a state law] is deemed inconsistent with the State’s transcendent interest, whether or not the terms of the local law actually conflict with a State-wide statute” (Albany Area Bldrs.