N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Town / ARTICLE Finances
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Town Law § 118 (2026)

Form of claims

✓ 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 
§ 118. Form of claims. 1. Except as otherwise provided by this
section, no claim against a town, except for a fixed salary, for
compensation for services of officers or employees regularly engaged by
the town at agreed wages by the hour, day, week, month or year, for the
principal of or interest on indebtedness, or amounts becoming due upon
lawful contracts for periods exceeding one year, shall be paid unless an
itemized voucher therefor, in such form as the town board or the town
comptroller shall prescribe, shall have been presented to the town board
or town comptroller and shall have been audited and allowed. Such
voucher shall be accompanied by a statement by the officer whose action
gave rise or origin to the claim that he approves the claim and that the
service was actually rendered or supplies or equipment actually
delivered. The town board may determine, by resolution, that vouchers
shall be certified or verified.
  2. The town board may by resolution authorize the payment in advance
of audit of claims for public utility services, postage, freight and
express charges. All such claims shall be presented at the next regular
meeting for audit, and the claimant and the officer incurring or
approving the same shall be jointly and severally liable for any amount
disallowed by the town board.
  As used in this subdivision the term public utility services shall
mean electric, gas, water, sewer, fuel oil and telephone services.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Matter of Harriman Estates at Aquebogue, LLC v. Town of Riverhead, 151 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Harriman Estates at Aquebogue, LLC v. Town of Riverhead, 151 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017). · cites it 3× “In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent/defendant Town Board of the Town of Riverhead dated October 5, 2010, which denied the petitioners/plaintiffs’ claim, pursuant to Town Law §§ 118 and 119, for an audit and a refund of…”
Twin Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Town of Monroe, 801 N.E.2d 821 (N.Y. 2003). “The Code, however, expressly limits the fees that can be exacted to those that are “reasonable” (see Monroe Town Code § 26B-2 [A] [11] [a], [i] [1]) and the Town interprets the fees as subject to the audit provisions of Town Law §§ 118 and 119. In addition, uncontradicted proof…”
Price v. Evers, 45 A.D.3d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007). “Here, petitioner alleges that the payment to the contractor was made in violation of Town Law § 118 because respondent failed to submit the required officer’s statement with the voucher and, on January 25, 2007, the Town Board disapproved the payment despite the fact that it had…”
Payne v. Taylor, 178 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1991). “The respondent partnership is a "public utility” as defined by relevant statute (see, Public Service Law § 2 [17], [18], [23]; Tax Law § 186-a [2] [a] [i]; Town Law § 118) and provides a useful public service.”
Wm. H. Clark Mun. Equip., Inc. v. Town of La Grange, 170 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991). “Supreme Court found that the voucher and audit provisions of Town Law §§ 118 and 119 were, in effect, a condition precedent to the accrual of the time period under Town Law § 65 (3).”
Sunbeach Real Est. Dev. Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, 161 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1990). “The matter was referred to the Town Attorney and, after a lack of any response, the plaintiff, pursuant to Town Law §§ 118 and 119, demanded an audit, as well as a refund of the entire amount of $83,109.”
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 153 Misc. 2d 302 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1992). “">79 Misc 2d 600 , affd 48 AD2d 756 , lv denied 37 NY2d 709 [1975]; see also, Matter of Payne v Taylor, 178 AD2d 979 [4th Dept] [regarding a 400-foot antenna tower to supply cellular telephone service, "The respondent partnership is a 'public utility’ as defined by relevant…”
Matter of Davidson v. Town of Charlton Plan. Bd., 2024 NY Slip Op 31501(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Saratoga Cty. 2024). “00 paid (see~ Town Law§§ 118 & 119; Matter of Harriman Estates atAquebogue, LLC v Town of Riverhead, 151 AD3d 854 [2d Dept 2017]; Wildlife Associates v Town Bd.”
Matter of Davidson v. Town of Charlton Plan. Bd., 2024 NY Slip Op 31501(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Saratoga Cty. 2024). “00 paid (see~ Town Law§§ 118 & 119; Matter of Harriman Estates atAquebogue, LLC v Town of Riverhead, 151 AD3d 854 [2d Dept 2017]; Wildlife Associates v Town Bd.”
Twin Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Town of Monroe, 300 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002). “Furthermore, the claim and audit procedures set forth in Town Law §§118 and 119 are available to assure that only reasonably necessary fees are charged (see Matter of Wildlife Assoc.”
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 188 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1992). “The court properly determined that the petitioner, Cellular Telephone Company (hereinafter CTC), was a public utility (see, Matter of Payne v Taylor, 178 AD2d 979 ; Public Service Law § 2 [17], [18], [23]; Tax Law § 186-a [2] [a] [i]; Town Law § 118 [2]). Therefore, the test for…”
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.