From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1999
259 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment declaring that Local Finance Law § 11.00 (a) (12) does not violate N Y Constitution, article VIII, § 2.

The plaintiffs, residents of the East Ramapo Central School District, challenge a bond proposal by the defendant Board of Education of that district, claiming that Local Finance Law § 11.00 (a) (12) (b), upon which the Board relied, violates NY Constitution, article VIII, § 2. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge is that in its bond proposal, the Board included computers as "equipment" in renovated buildings pursuant to Local Finance Law § 11.00 (a) (12) (b), thus assigning them a 20-year period of probable usefulness, notwithstanding separate statutory provisions which prescribe a 10-year period to various types of computer systems ( see, e.g., Local Finance Law § 11.00 [a] [53-a], [81], [82], [88]). However, these provisions apply to entire computer systems not necessarily installed as part of a building renovation. They do not preclude the inclusion of computers as "equipment" within a renovated school building pursuant to Local Finance Law § 11.00 (a) (12) (b) (see, 1986 Opns St Comp 86-3). Furthermore, NY Constitution, article VIII, § 2 authorizes the State Legislature to prescribe periods of probable usefulness, and specifically provides that the determination of the Legislature of a period of probable usefulness is conclusive.

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the Board ( see, Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Friedman v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1999
259 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Friedman v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:HERMAN FRIEDMAN et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EAST RAMAPO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 84

Citing Cases

Summers v. City of Rochester

The City guaranteed payments to Export Finance for the purchase of the ferry through 2021, less than the 35…

OWNER-OPERATOR ASSN v. Urbach

The proper relief here is a declaration in defendants' favor. (See, Friedman v Board of Educ., 259 AD2d 464…