83 N.Y.S. 442 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1903
The question at issue is whether, under the present law, the superintendent of buildings in the city of New York, or the Factory Inspector of the State, has jurisdiction to require the erection of fire escapes on factory buildings in the borough of Manhattan. ' It • appears that the defendant is the owner of a factory building known as Nos. 24 to 34 University- place in the borough of Manhattan, upon which the superintendent of buildings. directed it to put a fire
The question of how far the special act was affected by the general act on the same subject was directly passed upon in the case of People v. Pierson (59 Hun, 450). Therein the question was whether the provisions of chapter 720 of the Laws of 1887, the general act relating to fire escapes in hotels, applied to the city of New York, and whether that subject was covered so far as that city was concerned by section 499, chapter 410 of the Laws of 1882 (Consol. Act), as amended by chapter 566 of the Laws of 1887, and it was held that the provisions of the general law did not apply, and that “ where it appears that the Legislature has passed an act relating to a certain subject in a particular city, said act being in all respects more precise and far-reaching than a general act relative thereto passed subsequently, but going into effect a few days earlier than the special act, the court will assume that the general act was not intended to repeal, supersede or modify the special enactment.” We have authority, therefore, for the proposition that, under the laws as they existed in 1892, and until the enactment of the Labor Law of 1897 (Laws of 1897, chap. 415), the superintendent of build
That this act was not intended to supersede all local statutes dealing with factories and other commercial buildings in Hew York city is shown by the provisions of section 90, which, while conferring authority upon the Factory Inspector to examine into the general' condition as to.safety of factory buildings, and authorizing him to give orders with respect thereto, expressly excepted the cities of Hew York and Brooklyn from such provisions. It is urged, however, that this.' exception as to. inspection for safety shows an intention upon the part of the Legislature to confer upon the Factory Inspector power •over-fire escapes in Hew York city; because in'respect thereto no such exception relating to the cities of Hew York and Brooklyn was expressly enacted. It was also provided in the Labor Law of 1897 (§ 66) that the Factory Inspector may establish and maintain a sub-office in the city of Hew York; and upon this the argument is made that this provision is indicative of the legislative intent that' jurisdiction over fire escapes should he vested in that officer. It is further argued that the city of Hew York as now constituted embraces many boroughs in addition to Brooklyn and Manhattan, which are not controlled by the provisions of the Consolidation Act; and that, therefore, though it be held that the latter act applied to the old city of Hew York, it could not be regarded as applicable to-the territory embraced within the greater city, and that it would he incongruous to have within the greater city two departments exercising with respect to the same subject jurisdiction in different boroughs. Such arguments are pertinent and helpful, but by no means conclusive, we preferring,,, because more certain, to follow the more general and well-settled canons of construction in order' to determine what was the legislative intent.
r The force and effect, moreover, of these arguments is greatly
We are thus confronted with a condition of the law not radically different from that existing in 1892, and find at both periods a general law and a special law relating to the same subject and passed at the same session of the Legislature. By a like process of reasoning we should reach the conclusion that by the general act it was not intended,, in the absence of an express repeal (which in this case does not exist), to destroy the local act which had just been enacted. By section 647 of the charter it was provided: “ The several acts in effect at the time of the passage of this act concerning, affecting or relating to the construction, alteration or removal of buildings or other structures in any of the municipal and public corporations included within the city of New York as constituted by this act are hereby continued in full force and effect in such municipal and public corporations respectively, except in so far a the same are inconsistent with or are modified by this act; provided, however, that the municipal assembly shall have power to establish and, from time to time, to amend'a code of ordinances to be known as the ‘ building code,’ providing for all matters concerning * * * the construction, alteration or removal of buildings or structures erected or to be erected in the city of New York as constituted by this act. * * * The provisions of such ‘ building code’ shall be in conformity with and be subject to all general laws of the estate (sic) concerning, affecting or relating to buildings or classes of buildings or other structures.”
That the exclusive jurisdiction which the building department had over fire escapes, and which we think existed up to 1897, was continued under this section of the charter, we would regard as placed beyond doubt were it not for the provision authorizing the municipal assembly to enact a Building Code, and the language which we have quoted at the end of section 647 that the provisions of such Building Code shall be in conformity with and be subject to all general laws of the State concerning buildings. We think that the meaning to be attached to this language is that which has been frequently given to similar language when used by the Legislature as declarative of the general rule that ordinances must be in con
We think that this would be a forced construction to give to the language, and that, on the contrary, the whole trend of the legislation since 1892 to which attention has been called, down to 1897,. when the Labor Law was passed, shows a clear legislative scheme of having the jurisdiction of the Factory Inspector apply to all the State except cities like the city of Yew York, wherein full and ample provision had been made for carrying out the same character of remedial legislation affecting the construction, management and equipment of factory and other buildings.
If we are right in our construction that the Building Code as enacted pursuant to authority, continued the jurisdiction which was conferred upon the superintendent of buildings over fire escapes in the city of Yew York, it will be well to note that this Building Code is confirmed by section 407 of the revised charter (Laws, of 1901, chap. 466), which reads as follows: “ The building code which shall be in force in the city of Yew York on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and two, and all then existing provisions of law fixing the penalties for violation of said code, and all then
Passing, however, from these special considerations to a general survey and review of the subject, we think it apparent from the history of the legislation to which wre have attempted briefly to refer, that it is therein shown that although it was the intention to enact a general law which would confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the Factory Inspector in other parts of the State, there was certainly no express —nor do we think there was an implied — repeal of the special and local law which conferred upon the superintendent of buildings in the city of New York the right and power to assume jurisdiction within that territory over the subject of fire escapes on factories. The fact that both in 1892 and 1897, when the general laws on the subject were passed, at the same session local laws bearing on the sainé subject and relating to the city of New York were enacted, brings the whole subject within the rule of construction urged by the city, that “ a special statute providing for a particular class of cases is not repealed by a subsequent statute general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal it is manifest, although the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law.”
This statement of the rule we think well summarizes the controversy. Taking the Labor Law and its general terms it would seemingly be of general application to the entire State; but to give it such an application would render nugatory the special and local law which is shown to have been carefully prepared and passed at the same session of the Legislature at which such general law was enacted. Were it the intention of the Legislature to destroy the work of the day before, it would have been easy to have said so. But in the absence of such expression, and in view of the course
Upon the facts, therefore, we think that judgment should be for the plaintiff, with costs.
Yan Brunt, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ., concurred.
Judgment ordered for plaintiff, with costs.