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

N.Y. Town Law § 63 (2026)

Presiding officer and rules of procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 63. Presiding officer and rules of procedure. The supervisor, when
present, shall preside at the meetings of the town board. In the absence
of the supervisor, the other members shall designate one of their
members to act as temporary chairman. A majority of the board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a lesser number
may adjourn. The vote upon every question shall be taken by ayes and
noes, and the names of the members present and their votes shall be
entered in the minutes. Every act, motion or resolution shall require
for its adoption the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members
of the town board. The board may determine the rules of its procedure,
and the supervisor may, from time to time, appoint one or more
committees, consisting of members of the board, to aid and assist the
board in the performance of its duties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Hoehmann v. Town of Clarkstown, 2023 NY Slip Op 02606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hoehmann v. Town of Clarkstown, 2023 NY Slip Op 02606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). · cites it 8× “that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment declaring that Chapter 263 of the Code of the Town of Clarkstown is invalid because it was not subject to a public referendum is granted, that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment…”
Field Day, LLC v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 799 F. Supp. 2d 186 (E.D.N.Y 2011). · cites it 3× “It seems clear, however, that the same procedure, to wit, an affirmative vote by the Town Board consistent with Town Law §§ 63 and 64(6), would be necessary to bind the Town to the Agreement after its signing as would have been necessary had it been one of the original…”
Kent Acres Dev. Co. v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Although the Town never voted or formally authorized a resolution denying the participation of Kent Acres and Lexington *549 in the POPP (see Town Law § 63), relying instead on a letter from the Town Attorney, the Town nonetheless failed to comply with the gist of its…”
Monro Muffler/Brake, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Perinton, 222 A.D.2d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “The fact that two members voted to grant the application, two members voted to deny it, and one member abstained from voting did not, as petitioners contend, constitute a "non-action” by respondent (see, Town Law § 63; Matter of Zagoreos v Conklin, 109 AD2d 281 ).”
Town Bd. of Town of Clarence v. Hallock, 2 Misc. 3d 826 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “The town is governed by the provisions of the Town Law and, in particular, the provisions of Town Law § 63. It is clear that the town board has not adopted Robert’s Rules of Order for the conduct of its meetings but instead follow an informal procedure based on the past…”
Town Bd. of Town of Clarence v. Hallock, 2003 NY Slip Op 23945 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie Cty. 2003). · cites it 3× “Town Law § 63 gave respondent the power to make one person "liaison/committee" assignments without any review by the town board.”
George Hoehmann v. Town of Clarkstown , The Matter of Frank Borelli v. Town of Clarkstown, The Matter of Rosalind Jacobson v. George A. Hoehmann, 40 N.Y.3d 1 (N.Y. 2023). “9-2014 conflicts with Town Law § 63 and Municipal Home Rule Law § 20.”
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.