Opn. No.
Background
- Non-charter counties may have local laws appointing the local director of community services under Mental Hygiene Law § 41.09(a); the Legislature distinguishes charter vs non-charter counties in appointment authority.
- Article 41 of Mental Hygiene Law creates LGUs that plan and administer mental hygiene services with state aid tied to local comprehensive planning.
- Community services boards appoint the local director; charter counties may alter this mechanism, but non-charter counties generally have the board appoint the director.
- A non-charter county adopted a local law letting the county legislature appoint the director, conflicting with § 41.09(a).
- The Attorney General discusses whether § 41.09(a) relates to a substantial state concern and whether the charter/non-charter distinction is permissible.
- The opinion concludes that § 41.09(a) is a substantial state concern and non-charter counties may not legislate inconsistently with it, while allowing a reasonable charter/non-charter distinction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §41.09(a) relate to a substantial state concern? | Statute addresses state planning of mental hygiene services. | Same as plaintiff; statute serves state interest. | Yes, §41.09(a) relates to a substantial state concern. |
| Is the charter vs non-charter county distinction permissible in §41.09(a)? | Distinct executive structures warrant differential treatment. | Classification is reasonable and related to state purpose. | Yes, distinction is reasonable and related to state purpose. |
| May a non-charter county legislate to appoint the director contrary to §41.09(a)? | Non-charter counties should be free to legislate on local appointments. | Legislation inconsistent with §41.09(a) undermines the LGU’s independence. | No; non-charter counties may not legislate inconsistently with §41.09(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- City of New York v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n, 89 N.Y.2d 380 (1996) (state interest can supersede home rule when substantial)
- Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n v. City of New York, 50 N.Y.2d 85 (1980) (home rule limitations when state concern exists)
- Matter of Kelley v. McGee, 57 N.Y.2d 522 (1982) (state interest can justify classifications among locals)
- Adler v. Deegan, 251 N.Y.467 (1929) (public health/regulatory state interest as substantial)
- Wambat Realty Corp. v. State, 41 N.Y.2d 490 (1977) (substantial state concern governing local regulation)
- Osborn v. Cohen, 272 N.Y.55 (1936) (local vs state control of local government functions)
- Resnick v. County of Ulster, 44 N.Y.2d 279 (1978) (local government structuring and appointment power)