1998-9
View/download document
Cite as N.Y. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1998-9
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW § 41; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 950;
PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 42(5).
There is no provision in State law which provides a remedy
to the Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency in the event there
is a deadlock in filling a vacancy on the board. The Agency may
act even with the vacancy provided the quorum and majority
requirements of section 41 of the General Construction Law have
been met.
February 19, 1998
Kathleen Wojtaszek-Gariano, Esq.
Informal Opinion
Counsel
No. 98-9
Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency
2768 Niagara Falls Boulevard
Niagara Falls, NY 14304
Dear Ms. Wojtaszek-Gariano:
I have received your September 2, 1997 letter regarding the
appointment of community representatives on the board of the Love
Canal Area Revitalization Agency. Specifically, you have asked,
in the event of a tie vote in filling a vacancy in the position
of a community board member, whether any remedies are available
under State law to fill the vacancy. Also, you have asked
whether the Agency may take action when a vacancy exists on the
board.
The Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency has been
established by State law as an industrial development agency,
constituting a public benefit corporation, for the benefit of the
City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Wheatfield. General
Municipal Law § 950(1). Under the enabling legislation for the
Agency, three members of the board are appointed by the mayor of
the City of Niagara Falls with the concurrence of the city
council. Id., § 950(4). Three members are appointed by the town
supervisor of the Town of Wheatfield with the concurrence of the
town board. Id. The three remaining members, who are
representatives of the area served by the Agency, are appointed
by the members of the board appointed by the mayor and town
supervisor. Id.
You have forwarded to me a decision of the State Supreme
Court holding that only the six members of the board appointed by
2
officials of the City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Wheatfield
may appoint the community representatives on the board. The
opinion of the court states that in the event of a tie vote in
filling a vacancy in the position of community member, there is
no provision in the law for the remaining community board members
to vote to fill the vacancy.
We are not aware of any statutory remedy in the event of a
tie vote to fill an appointive office. We note that
section 42(5) of the Public Officers Law gives the Governor
discretion to call a special election to fill a vacancy in an
elective office where a board, because of a tie vote or for any
other reason, is unable to make a temporary appointment to fill
the office. There is no comparable provision for appointive
offices.
Generally, the existence of a vacancy on an agency’s board
does not preclude the exercise of authority by the agency. In
the absence of quorum and voting requirements in the agency’s
enabling legislation, the provisions of section 41 of the General
Construction Law would apply. See also, section 856(3) of the
General Municipal Law discussed in Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 93-41.
The enabling legislation for the Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency does not include quorum and voting
requirements. Thus, section 41 applies, and provided that a
quorum exists and the requisite affirmative votes for a proposal
are cast, as provided in section 41, action can be taken. We
note, however, that the Legislature intended that three members
of the board represent the area served by the Agency. While the
tie vote has prevented appointment of only one community
representative, a prolonged impasse or failure to appoint
additional community representatives arguably defeats the
legislative intent to represent on the board community interests,
and might possibly lead to successful challenges of board action.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,
JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
In Charge of Opinions
3