citymeetings.nyc

Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.

Q&A

Standard for challenging validity of local laws

0:13:41

·

154 sec

Video Player is loading.

Current TimeÂ 0:00

DurationÂ 0:00

Loaded: 0%

Stream TypeÂ LIVE

Remaining TimeÂ 0:00

Â

Speaker Adams and Goode-Trufant discuss the legal standard for challenging the validity of local laws, referencing specific cases and the Law Department's previous arguments. Goode-Trufant commits to using a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard when considering challenges to local laws.

Speaker Adams cites cases involving noncitizen voting rights and the Law Department's arguments in those cases
The discussion highlights the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard and the presumptive validity of local laws
Goode-Trufant agrees to only challenge the validity of a duly enacted local law if it can be proven unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt

Adrienne E. Adams

0:13:41

In your pre hearing questions, you were asked if you would only instruct the department to take legal action to challenge the validity of a local law after coming to a determination that such invalidity could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

0:13:56

You responded, and I quote, to my knowledge, the standard for validity or invalidity of a local law is not the, quote, beyond a reasonable doubt standard that applies in criminal prosecutions, unquote.

0:14:13

I wanna call your attention to a couple of cases on this particular matter.

0:14:17

Are you aware of litigation against the city challenging the enactment of a local law that would allow noncitizens to vote in local elections?

Muriel Goode-Trufant

0:14:26

Yes.

0:14:26

The law department is representing the council in such litigation.

0:14:31

Mhmm.

0:14:31

Mhmm.

Adrienne E. Adams

0:14:32

And are you aware that the the law department, which you just stated, appealed that case to the second department?

0:14:39

Yes.

0:14:39

Okay.

0:14:40

In that appeal, your predecessor, judge Sylvia Hines Radix, submitted an appellate brief on behalf of the council and the mayor, which cited Moran Towing Corp versus Urbach for the proposition that the New York State Court of Appeals requires that plaintiffs, quote, plaintiffs bear the heavy burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the law suffers, quote, wholesale constitutional impairment, unquote.

0:15:06

Are you aware that during your tenure as acting corporation counsel in connection with the same case, you authorized the submission of a brief to the New York State Court of Appeals on behalf of the council?

0:15:18

Yes.

0:15:18

Okay.

0:15:19

In that brief, the law department argued that the court of appeals requires the plaintiff to establish that, quote, it is impossible to reconcile the local law and the state constitution, and that where reasonable doubt constitution, and that where reasonable doubt exists, the local law must be upheld, unquote.

0:15:35

Given the presumptive validity of local laws, if asked by the mayor to challenge the validity of a duly enacted local law as unconstitutional, would you only agree to do so after coming to a determination that the department could prove such local law is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt, or would you allow the department to pursue more speculative litigation to advance the mayor's policy objectives?

Muriel Goode-Trufant

0:16:08

Given, the tenor of the question, I would go with the former beyond a reasonable doubt.

0:16:14

Thank you.

← Previous Chapter

Mayor's veto of proposed local laws and stating legal infirmities

Next Chapter →

Staying enforcement of local laws opposed by the mayor