Summary
In Ainslie v Lounsbery, 275 App. Div. 729 (3d Dept, 1949), lv to app den 299 N.Y. 797 (1949), the Appellate Division declared invalid a local law of a city establishing a different method of appointment and different qualifications for the examining board of plumbers. It was decided that article 4 of the General City Law deals with a matter of State concern, and that the qualifications of members of the examing board of plumbers (§ 40-a) is an essential part of the State law (ibid.).
Summary of this case from Informal Opinion NoOpinion
March 9, 1949.
Appeal from Broome Special Term.
Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 865.]
The local law amends and supersedes in the city of Binghamton article 4 of the General City Law, an act of the Legislature relating to plumbing and drainage, and establishes a different method of appointment and different qualifications for the city examining board of plumbers (Local Laws, 1947, No. 1 of City of Binghamton). The power of a city to supersede by local law an act of the Legislature is limited by section 11 of the City Home Rule Law, insofar as relevant here, to property, affairs, or government of a city or the qualifications of city officers. The State law superseded is concerned with public health ( People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden of City Prison, 144 N.Y. 529), which is a matter of State concern and is not within the definition of property, affairs or government of a city. ( Adler v. Deegan, 251 N.Y. 467.) The qualifications of the members of the board are an essential part of the State law. It was only after a finding on very careful analysis that the State law did not apply to Buffalo that the court upheld the local law of that city relating to appointment of health officers in Fisher v. Kelly ( 289 N.Y. 161). Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent.