N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER County / ARTICLE Short Title; Application; Definitions
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. County Law § 2 (2026)

Application of chapter

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 2. Application of chapter. This chapter shall apply to all counties,
except that:
  (a) It shall not apply to a county wholly contained within a city,
unless specifically so provided;
  (b) The provisions of this chapter in so far as they are in conflict
with or in limitation of a provision of any alternative form of county
government heretofore or hereafter adopted by a county pursuant to
section two of article nine of the constitution, or any administrative
code, county government law or civil divisions act enacted by the
legislature and applicable to such county as now in force or hereafter
amended, or in conflict with any local law heretofore or hereafter
adopted by a county under an optional or alternative form of county
government, shall not be applicable to the county, unless a contrary
intent is expressly stated in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1985–2015 · leading case: Long Island Liquid Waste Ass'n v. Cass, 115 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Long Island Liquid Waste Ass'n v. Cass, 115 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1985). · cites it 3× “The instant recall and vacatur is war *711 ranted since, on reargument, the respondents draw this court’s attention for the first time to County Law § 2 (b), which section mandates affirmance of Special Term’s order.”
Mitchell v. Borakove, 225 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). · cites it 2× “) While the IAS Court, in reversing itself and ultimately granting the petition, relied upon the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Diaz v Lukash ( 82 NY2d 211 ), that decision is not here apposite since the petitioner in that case was proceeding under section 677 (3) (b) of…”
HAYFOOD v. City of New York, 64 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “See N.Y. County L. § 2 (a). 13 . n.Y. Const, art.”
Assakaf v. Arden, 210 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994). “Moreover, we note that County Law § 677 is not applicable to the petitioner’s request because the County Law does not apply to Kings County (see, County Law § 2 [a]). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ.”
Baranello v. Suffolk Cnty. Legislature, 69 N.Y.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1987). “LoGrande was not properly appointed based on this provision must fail for several reasons. The most obvious flaw in this *302 argument is that the provisions of the County Law have no application at all to the extent that they conflict with the provisions of the Suffolk County…”
Blass v. Cuomo, 145 Misc. 2d 670 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989). · cites it 6× “B Plaintiffs on the other hand contend that County Law § 2 (b) divests the Governor of this authority to fill a vacancy in the said office because Suffolk County adopted, by charter, a method of filling that vacancy.”
City of Syracuse v. Onondaga Cnty., 464 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2006). “12 However, New York case *315 law holds that where a county, such as Onondaga, “has adopted its own form of government, the provisions of that county’s duly adopted local laws apply instead of those of the County Law,” unless the County Law explicitly indicates that its…”
Blass v. Cuomo, 168 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991). “County Law § 2 (b), which is consistent with the home rule provisions of NY Constitution article IX, states: "The provisions of this chapter in so far as they are in conflict with or in limitation of a provision of any alternative form of county government heretofore or…”
Scott v. Chief Med. Exam'r, 179 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1992). “With respect to petitioner’s reliance on County Law § 677 (3) (b) for a copy of the autopsy report, and related materials, County Law § 2 expressly places New York County, which is wholly contained within a City, beyond the jurisdictional reach of the County Law, absent…”
Martin v. Eagle Hill Found., Inc., 111 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1985). “41 of the County of Suffolk, but that said local law also had the effect of superseding the bidding requirements of County Law § 215 (6) (County Law § 2 [b]). Although the local law did not specifically state that it was intended to supersede County Law § 215 (6), the failure to…”
Matter of Glass v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 130 A.D.3d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015). “Although the petitioners alleged that the County failed to comply with the bidding requirements of County Law § 215 (6), that statute does not apply here (see County Law § 2 [b]; Matter of Gallagher v Regan, 42 NY2d 230, 235 [1977]; Long Is.”
Katz v. Scott, 236 A.D.2d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1997). “Moreover, we note that the IAS Court’s reasoning appears to track the language of County Law § 677, the provisions of which are not applicable in New York City (County Law § 2 [a]; Matter of Mitchell v Borakove, supra; Matter of Assakaf v Arden, 210 AD2d 325 ).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.