Summary
In Long Is. Liquid Waste Assn. v Cass (107 A.D.2d 666), an action was brought to declare illegal and invalid the actions of the county Commissioner of Public Works who adopted a schedule of rates for disposal of scavenger wastes for sewer districts.
Summary of this case from Blass v. CuomoOpinion
January 14, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (De Luca, J.).
Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and the afore-mentioned actions by defendants and schedules of charges are declared to be illegal and void.
Plaintiffs claim that the schedule of charges for disposal of scavenger wastes adopted by defendants is void because it was never confirmed or approved by the Suffolk County Legislature. They rely upon subdivision 1 of section 266 County of the County Law of New York State, which states in pertinent part: "Subject to confirmation by the board of supervisors, the administrative head or body: (a) may establish * * * a scale of charges for the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of sewage, waste-water or refuse". (The role of the "board of supervisors" in Suffolk County is filled by the Suffolk County Legislature [County Law, § 150-a, subd 2; § 278].)
A resolution to approve these rates was, in fact, submitted to the Suffolk County Legislature following adoption of the original schedules, but was withdrawn before any action was taken.
There can be no question that the language "[s]ubject to confirmation" is mandatory and that sewage disposal rates set by the Commissioner do not become effective until the county legislature has ratified ("confirmed") them. Local Law No. 1 of 1972 (art III, § 4, subd 2) of Suffolk County states that the Commissioner "is hereby authorized to establish fees for scavenger waste permits" (emphasis added). This merely bestows upon the Commissioner the power to adopt rates, which was envisaged by the aforesaid provision of the County Law. It does not purport to confer upon the Commissioner the power granted to the county legislature to confirm these rates once they are "established". In any event, such a delegation of power to an administrative head, specifically vested by State law in the county legislative branch, would be invalid (Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10, subd 1; Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 107; Matter of Bovino v. Scott, 22 N.Y.2d 214). The rate schedules, therefore, never met the State law prerequisites for confirmation. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, O'Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.