Cornell v Steve

Annotate this Case
[*1] Cornell v Steve 2005 NY Slip Op 50816(U) Decided on March 21, 2005 Supreme Court, Cortland County Rumsey, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 21, 2005
Supreme Court, Cortland County

Lawrence E. Cornell, Cortland County Legislator, Petitioner-Plaintiff,

against

Scott Steve, as Chairman of the Cortland County Legislature and THE CORTLAND COUNTY LEGISLATURE, Respondents-Defendants.



39002



Perfetti Law Offices

By: Patrick A. Perfetti, Esq.

Attorneys for Petitioner-plaintiff

62 North Main Street

Cortland, New York 13045

Hickey, Sheehan & Gates, P.C.

By: Gregory A. Gates, Esq.

Attorney for Respondent-defendant, County of Cortland

160 Hawley Street

P.O. Box 2124

Binghamton, New York 13902 Law Offices of John T. Ryan

By: John T. Ryan, Jr., Esq.

Attorney for Respondent-defendant Scott Steve

25 South Main Street

Cortland, New York 13045

Phillip R. Rumsey, J.

In January 2004, the Cortland County Legislature held its biennial organizational meeting as mandated by the Legislature's Rules of Order (see, Verified Petition/Complaint, Exhibit 1 [hereinafter Rules]). The previous month, those legislators who were members of the Republican party (which, at all relevant times, held the greatest number of seats in the Legislature) had met and voted to appoint petitioner Lawrence Cornell to serve as "majority leader" of that body (Affidavit of Scott E. Steve, dated February 7, 2004,[FN1] ¶4), and a certificate indicating that choice was evidently filed with the Clerk of the Legislature at some time thereafter (id., ¶ 2). It appears that in the past, such appointments have generally been made for a two-year period. However, in December 2004, the Republican members met and voted to remove petitioner from his position as majority leader, and replace him with another individual. Petitioner now asks the court to annul that designation of his successor, so that he may reassume the position of majority leader for the remainder of this year, contending that such a mid-term replacement is not sanctioned or permitted by the Legislature's governing Rules.

Whether viewed as seeking an interpretation or enforcement of the Legislature's Rules,[FN2] this proceeding represents an attempt to involve the court in the internal affairs of the Cortland County Legislature. As recently noted by the Appellate Division, "it is not the province of the courts to direct the legislature how to do its work" (Matter of Fornario v Clerk to the Rockland County Legislature, 307 AD2d 927, 929 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In the absence of any allegation that constitutional rights have been violated, or that a governmental body's action contravenes an applicable statute, law or ordinance, a legislature's governance of its internal affairs, which has been entrusted to it by law - including the question of whether the Legislature violated its own internal rules - should not be subject to court oversight (see, Blackwell v City of Philadelphia, 546 Pa. 358, 365).

Petitioner does not suggest that respondents' alleged errors violated any state or federal statute, or any right of constitutional magnitude. Except for those matters expressly addressed by statute - and the selection of a "majority leader" is not among such matters - the County Legislature is empowered to "determine the rules of its own proceedings" (County Law § 153 [8]; see also, Local Law No. 2 of 1972 [establishing County Legislature, with the power to "enact local laws or rules * * * governing the conduct of the members at such sessions and the manner of transacting business thereat" (§ 202; emphasis added)]). Pursuant to that authority, the Rules themselves were adopted, and thereafter amended, by "resolution" (see, e.g., Cortland County Resolution No. 360 of 1974; Resolution No. 461 of 1987; Resolution No. 548 of 1993; Resolution No. 405 of 1994; Rules of Order, article I, ¶ 40), which is defined therein as "a written instrument for consideration and approval of the Legislature * * * in carrying out its power and duties pursuant to Statute or expressing the sense of the Legislature on a matter having to do with the operation of Cortland County Government" (Rules, article I, ¶ 39). Having been adopted by resolution, the Rules do not carry the weight of a Local Law or ordinance, but are simply internal regulations governing operation and procedure.

In sum, even accepting all of the allegations of the petition/complaint as true, there is no basis for concluding that the challenged action violated any statute, law, ordinance, or constitutional right, which would warrant court intervention. In the absence of such a violation, the interpretation and enforcement of a legislative body's procedural rules and guidelines are matters properly left to the Legislature itself, in the exercise of its fundamental duty to "determine the rules of its own proceedings" (County Law § 153 [8]). The petition/complaint [*2]shall therefore be dismissed.

Turning to the respondent Scott Steve's counterclaim for attorney fees, counsel has identified no specific legal authority that would permit such an award. Although the counterclaim arguably alleges facts which, if established, might support a claim for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, it is not, in this court's view, sufficient to place petitioner on notice that respondent seeks that type of relief. It is notable, in this regard, that none of the parties made any express reference to sanctions, or argument regarding the propriety of such relief, in any of the papers filed. Thus, the court cannot conclude that respondent was provided with adequate notice to permit consideration of an award of sanctions. There being no other basis upon which attorneys fees could be recovered in this proceeding, the counterclaim must also be dismissed.

This decision shall constitute the order and judgment of the court, superseding and replacing the prior Decision, Order and Judgment dated March 17, 2005.

Dated: March 21, 2005

Cortland, New York

____________________________

HON. PHILLIP R. RUMSEY

Supreme Court Justice Footnotes

Footnote 1: So in original; probably should be 2005.

Footnote 2: At oral argument, the parties characterized the relief sought as an "interpretation" of the relevant rules; should the court interpret those rules favorably to petitioner, however, he also asks the court to enforce them, by issuing an order reinstating him to his position as majority leader (see, Verified Petition/Complaint, ¶ 21).



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.