Case Name: In re COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF LACKAWANNA
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-07-08
Citations: 143 N.Y.S. 198
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF LACKAWANNA.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 143
Pages: 198–205

Head Matter:
(158 App. Div. 263.)
In re COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF LACKAWANNA.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 8, 1913.)
1. Constitutional Law (§ 61*)—Municipal Corporations (§ 907*)—Legisla-
tive Powers—Delegation to Court—Legalizing Municipal Bonds.
General Municipal Law (Laws 1911, e. 769) art. 2a, as to legalizing, by the court of proceedings for issuance of municipal bonds, is not a delegation of legislative power to the court, and so unconstitutional; its ef- ' feet, under sections 22, 23, 26, 28, being to delegate no discretionary power to the court, but merely to enumerate irregularities in the proceedings preliminary to the issuance which shall be considered immaterial, and to permit an ascertainment of the facts by the court, and a determination whether they bring the case within the operation of the statute.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 103-107; Dec. Dig. § 61;* Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1895; Dec. Dig. § 907.*]
2. Municipal Corporations (§ 867*)—Bond Issues—Legalizing Proceedings —Irregularities.
The charter of a city (Laws 1909, c. 574, § 86) requiring the vote of the citizens on the question of an expenditure for an improvement to be on the amount specified in the estimate of the council and in the notice of election, the fact that the ballot specifies $5,000 more than the resolution and notice is not a mere irregularity, within General Municipal Law (Laws 1911, c. 769) art. 2a, as to legalizing proceedings for issuance of municipal bonds.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1841; Dec. Dig. § 867.*]
3. Municipal Corporations (§ 867 )—Expenditures—Election—Estimate, ' Notice, and Ballot.
The charter of a city (Laws 1909, c. 574, § 86) providing that, when the council- resolve that an extraordinary expenditure ought to be made for a purpose set out in the resolution, it shall make an estimate of the sum necessary therefor, and publish such resolution and estimate, with notice of a special election to determine whether the amount of such ex penditure shall be raised by taxation, and providing that the ballot shall state the amount oí the expenditure, requires the amount stated in the# ballot to be the same as estimated by the council and published in the notice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1841; Dec. Dig. § 867. ]
Lambert, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
In the matter of the application of the Common Council of the City of Lackawanna for an order legalizing proceedings prior to the issue and sale of $130,000 road improvement bonds. From an order legalizing the same, an intervening taxpayer appeals. Reversed, and application denied.
Argued before KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, FOOTE, LAMBERT, and MERRELL, JJ.
Lewis L. Delafield, of New York City, for appellant.
Myron S. Short, of Lackawanna, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § numbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, P. J.
I concur in the construction Mr. Justice LAMBERT puts upon the statute under which this proceeding is brought and all he says upon that subject. It seems to me, however, that the conclusion which he reaches, that the infirmity in the proceedings was a mere irregularity or technicality, is not well founded. The charter of the city of Lackawanna requires the common council to publish the resolutions and estimates, together with the notice of the time and place of the special election, and the specific question to be decided at the special election, according to the statute, is whether the amount of such expenditure shall be raised by tax. The ballot is required to state the amount of the expenditure. I think the statute requires that this amount shall be the amount as estimated by the common council and published in the notice.
I think the application should have been denied.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application denied, with $10 costs.
ROBSON and FOOTE, JJ., concur.