Opinion
January 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Town Code of the Town of Huntington, article IV, § 173-14 imposes on certain landowners the duty to maintain the sidewalks adjoining their properties and prescribes the liability of such landowners in the event that a breach of their duty results in injury to a third party. The appellant, a landowner, argues that this section of the Town Code of the Town of Huntington is in conflict with Town Law § 130 (4). We disagree.
A town may enact a local law such as the one now under review pursuant to its power to legislate in connection with "[t]he acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, roads, streets, avenues and property" (Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [ii] [a] [6]; see also, N.Y. Const, art IX, § 2 [c] [ii] [6]; Karom v. Altarac, 3 A.D.2d 925 [construing former City Home Rule Law § 11 (1)]; cf., Holcomb v. Wincuinas, 22 A.D.2d 715 [construing former Village Law §§ 89, 90]; Rooney v. City of Long Beach, 42 A.D.2d 34 [construing former City Home Rule Law § 11 (1) and Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (j)]). The local law under review in this case expands, and does not limit, the number of persons or entities who may be held to account for defective sidewalks. There is no direct conflict between State and local law in this case (cf., Rooney v. City of Long Beach, 42 A.D.2d 34, supra [local law in conflict with Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (j)]). On the contrary, the State law and the local law promote the same general policy and are fully compatible (see generally, Council For Owner Occupied Hous. v. Koch, 119 Misc.2d 241, affd 61 N.Y.2d 942; cf., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 108).
In the absence of any conflict or incompatability with State law, the local law under review in this case is valid irrespective of the Town of Huntington's alleged failure to comply with the requirements that are to be followed whenever a local government purports to preempt the terms of a State statute (see, Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 22, 10 [ii] [d] [3]; Kamhi v. Town of Yorktown, 74 N.Y.2d 423; Walker v. Town of Hempstead, 190 A.D.2d 364, affd 84 N.Y.2d 360).
For these reasons, the arguments advanced by the appellant are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.