Opinion
May 7, 1951.
Submission of controversy on an agreed statement of facts. Defendants, constituting the council of the city of Long Beach, propose to pass a local law permitting the issue of bonds for public improvements, the bonds to contain a provision for mandatory redemption. Plaintiff, a taxpayer, contends that the proposed local law is unconstitutional as in violation of section 2 of article VIII of the State Constitution. The court is asked to determine the constitutionality of the proposed local law. The submission must be dismissed for two reasons: (1) it is not the practice of the court to render advisory opinions in advance of the happening of an event ( Gish v. Village of Peekskill, 255 App. Div. 706); (2) judgment may not be rendered, as plaintiff requests in its brief, to restrain defendants from enacting the proposed local law on the ground of unconstitutionality; the jurisdiction of the court may be invoked for the protection of rights that may be violated by the enforcement of the proposed local law only after its enactment. ( New Orleans Water Works v. New Orleans, 164 U.S. 471, 481-482; Gas Elec. Securities Co. v. Manhattan Queens Traction Corp., 266 F. 625, 635.) The practice of propounding a question for answer in a submission without indicating the judgment to be rendered is improper ( Williams v. City of Rochester, 2 Lans. 169), even though the submission may be amended thereafter ( Cogan v. Taylor, 212 App. Div. 8, 12). The submission is dismissed, without costs to either party. Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.