Opinion ID: 3011843
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New York View

Text: The New York standard was most clearly articulated by the Court of Appeals of New York in Malverty v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 524 N.E.2d 421, 422 (N.Y. 1988). In Malverty, the petitioner sought to apply New York Corrections Law to the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, a bi-state agency established by New York and New Jersey and approved by Congress. Id. at 421. The compact creating the Waterfront Commission included authorization to amend and supplement the Interstate Compact, to implement the purposes thereof, by legislative action of either State concurred in by legislative action of the other State. Id. at 422. The Malverty court found the absence from the text and legislative history of [the Corrections Law] of any reference to the Waterfront Commission, coupled with the absence of an express statement that the Legislature was amending or supplementing the provisions of the ‘Compact’ and that [the Corrections Law] would take effect upon the enactment by New Jersey of legislation of identical effect, to indicate that the New York legislature had never intended the Corrections Law to apply to the Waterfront Commission. Id. The court noted,That the two States have evinced the same, or similar, public policy regarding employment opportunities for former inmates by enacting similar ‘antidiscrimination’ laws is not sufficient under the express terms of the ‘Compact’ to render it properly amended or supplemented such that the Commission would be subject to the provisions of[New York’s Corrections Law]. Id. (citations omitted). It thus viewed the concurred in language to require an express statement to that effect.