New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Executive Law § 819 (2026)

Applicability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 819. Applicability. 1. No provision of this article shall be
construed to prohibit any local government from adopting and enforcing
land use and development controls for lands, other than those owned by
the state.
  2. Any local land use program which has been validly enacted or
adopted by a municipality shall be valid and enforceable notwithstanding
its not having been approved by the agency, and any new land use or
development or subdivision of land shall be subject to the provisions of
such local land use program and to the shoreline restrictions contained
in section eight hundred six. If the agency has project review
jurisdiction over any such land use or development or subdivision of
land under section eight hundred nine, such land use, development or
subdivision shall, in addition to its being subject to the provisions of
any such local land use program, be subject to such agency jurisdiction.
The project sponsor may not undertake or continue such land use,
development or subdivision, however, or any part thereof,
notwithstanding the granting of a permit therefor by the agency, unless
such undertaking or continuance is also permitted by the municipality
under and in accordance with the provisions of its local land use
program.
  3. No provision of this article shall be deemed to prohibit any land
use and development or subdivision of land existing prior to the
effective date of this article, including those uses and development and
subdivisions of land expressly not subject to agency review as provided
in section eight hundred eleven.
  4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to empower the agency to
acquire any interest in real property by purchase or condemnation. No
right of first refusal or first option to purchase in favor of the
agency, the department of environmental conservation or any other state
agency shall in any way be created by this article or the land use and
development plan.
  5. Nothing in this article shall be construed to supersede or replace
or diminish in any way any regulatory or review authority of any other
state agency.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1982–1995 · leading case: Liberty Cable Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 893 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Liberty Cable Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 893 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). · cites it 3× “N.Y.Exec.Law § 819(1) (McKinney 1982). In New York, a “cable television system” is defined as: any system which operates for hire the service of receiving and amplifying programs broadcast by one or more television or radio stations or any other programs originated by a cable…”

Ciminelli v. Cablevision, 583 F. Supp. 144 (E.D.N.Y 1984). “4; N.Y.Exec.Law § 819 (McKinney 1982)). Subscribers are free to select the level and combination of services they wish to receive from the cable company, based, of course, on their viewing preferences and, more likely, on how much they wish to spend.”

New York Citizens Comm. on Cable TV v. Manhattan Cable TV, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 802 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “Even if this court were to find that refusals to deal with unaffiliated pay programmers were the foreseeable result of N.Y.Exec.Law § 819, the defendants have not met the other prong of the test: active state supervision.”

New York State Comm'n on Cable Television v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 669 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1982). “” Importantly, such a system could not operate without first obtaining a franchise from the local municipality pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law § 819 . 4 By its “Petition for Expedited Relief” filed on March 11, 1977, Orth-O-Vision, a marketer of HBO’s pay television service in…”

Satellite Television of New York Assocs. v. Finneran, 579 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “Law § 812(2) (McKinney 1982), 4 and that such system had not been franchised by the NYSCCT, as required under N.Y.Exec.Law § 819(1) (McKinney 1982), 5 or granted a confirmation of franchise, as required under N.”

Starburst Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 131 Misc. 2d 177 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “But any comparison or contrast between the City Charter provisions and the Commission regulations must be read in the context of Executive Law § 819 (3) which states: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent franchise requirements in excess of those prescribed by…”

Satellite Television of Ny v. Finneran, 579 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “Law § 812(2) (McKinney 1982), [4] and that such system had not been franchised by the NYSCCT, as required under N.Y.Exec.Law § 819(1) (McKinney 1982), [5] or granted a confirmation of franchise, as required under N.”

— N.Y. Executive Law § 819(1) — 3 cases

Liberty Cable Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 893 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “N.Y.Exec.Law § 819(1) (McKinney 1982). In New York, a “cable television system” is defined as: any system which operates for hire the service of receiving and amplifying programs broadcast by one or more television or radio stations or any other programs originated by a cable…”

— N.Y. Executive Law § 819(2) — 1 case

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.