From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of London v. Wagner

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 22, 1962
181 N.E.2d 759 (N.Y. 1962)

Opinion

Argued January 10, 1962

Decided February 22, 1962

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ARON STEUER, J.

S.S. Goldsmith, Philip Cohen, Leon London, Hyman I. Luster and William M. Schwartz for appellants.

Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Council ( Edith I. Spivack, Edward J. McLaughlin and Russell D. Scott of counsel), for respondents.



Order affirmed, with costs.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER. Judge FROESSEL dissents in the following opinion:


I dissent. The majority hold that the subject matter of the bill in mimeographed and printed form was before the councilmen for the full required statutory period. I do not agree.

Section 37 of chapter 2 of the Charter of the City of New York provides: "No local law shall be passed until it shall have been in its final form and upon the desks of the councilmen at least seven calendar days, exclusive of Sundays, prior to its final passage * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) That requirement is not directory but mandatory ( People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 184 N.Y. 431, 439).

Local Law No. 14, here involved, was on the councilmen's desks from December 16 until its passage on December 23. Under section 20 of the General Construction Law, the first day must be excluded from the computation. Thus, disregarding the first day and the intervening Sunday, the bill was before the councilmen for not more than six calendar days. The City Council was powerless to give retroactive effect to Local Law No. 14.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Matter of London v. Wagner

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 22, 1962
181 N.E.2d 759 (N.Y. 1962)
Case details for

Matter of London v. Wagner

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANNA LONDON et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT F. WAGNER, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 22, 1962

Citations

181 N.E.2d 759 (N.Y. 1962)
181 N.E.2d 759
227 N.Y.S.2d 13

Citing Cases

Town of Coeymans v. Malphrus

A curative statute may not operate to divest retroactively a vested right, only prospectively. (McKinney's…

Sweeney v. Cannon

" The court there held the regulation must be upheld so long as the classification involved "has a reasonable…