Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Summons & Complaint 7-27-12 - (_ Legal 3666356)

Summons & Complaint 7-27-12 - (_ Legal 3666356)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15,962|Likes:
Published by liz_benjamin6490

More info:

Published by: liz_benjamin6490 on Jul 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
SUPREMECOURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
NEWYORK
:îilt::Ì:Yt?Y
...........x
THE
MAYOR
OF
THE
CITY
OF
NEW YORK,Plaintiff,
-against-
THECOUNCIL
OF
THE
CITY
OF
NEW YORK,
Defendant.
SUMMONS
Index
No.
TO
THE
ABOVE.NAMED DEFENDANT:YOU ARE HEREBYSUMMONED
and
required
to
serve
upon
Plaintiffls
attorney
an answer
to
the
complaintinthis
action
within
twenty
daysaftertheservice
of
thissummons, exclusive
of
the day
of
service, or
withinthirty
days
afterservice is complete
if
thissummonsisnot
personally
delivered
toyou
within
the
State
of
New
York.
In
case
of
yourfailure to
answer,
judgment
will
be
taken
against
youby defaultfor
the
relief
demanded
in
the
complaint.
Plaintifls
designation
of
venue
accords
with
CPLR
503(a).
Dated:
New York, New
York
Iuly
27,2012
MICHAEL A.
CARDOZO
Corporation
Attorney
for
of
City
ofNew
York
the
of
the
City
of Ne
wYork
By
sistant
on Counsel
100
Church
NewYork,New
York
10007
212,788.1007
 
SUPREMECOURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
NEWYORK
::ili::YYt?Y
...........x
THE
MAYOR
OF
THE
CITY
OF
NEW YORK,Plaintiff,
-against-
THECOUNCIL
OF
THE
CITY
OF.NEV/
YORK,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Index
No.
The
Mayor
of
the
City
of
New
York,
Michael
R,
Bloomberg,
by
Michael
A.
Cardozo,
Corporation
Counsel
of
the
City
ofNew
York,
for hiscomplaint
against
the
Council
of
the
City
of
New
York,
alleges
as
follows:
Preliminary
Statement
l.
This
action
challenges
the
validity of two
local
lawspurportedly
adopted
by
the
NewYorkCityCouncil
("Council")
over the
Mayor's
veto,
Local Law
27
for
the
Year 2012
("Prevailing
Wage
Law"),
and
Local
Law
37, also
for
theYear 2012
("Living
Wage
Law")
(together,
the
"Local
Laws"),
which
seek
to
requirespecified
developers
of
realproperty
who
receive
hnancial
assistance
from
the
City
andspecified
lessors
who
lease
offrce
space
to
the
City,
as
well
as
any
contractors
or
subcontractors
of
those
developers
and
lessors,
to
pay
so-
called
"prevailing"
andlor
"living"
wages,as
defined
by
the
respective
Local
Laws,
to
their
employees
who
work
onthe
premises.
2.
The
two
Local Laws
are
similar
in
many
respects,
but
they
purportto
apply to
different
groups
of
employees:
only building
service
workersin
the
case
of
the
Prevailing
Wage
Law
and
all
employees other than
building
service
workers
and
construction workers
in
the
case
of
the
Living
Wage
Law.
 
3.
The
Mayor
vetoed these
Local
Laws
because
he
believes
them
to
be
illegal
and because he
believes that
they
will
harm the
City's
efforts
to
continue
to
attract and
generatethebusiness
activity
that is
necessary
to
support the localeconomy
and
the
services
of New
York
City
government.He
also
expressed
his
view
that the PrevailingWage
Law would
make
the
City
a
lessdesirable
tenant,
with
detrimental effects especially
in
areas
of
the
City
where
the
City's
tenancy
might
be
mostuseful
as a
spur
to
economicdevelopment.
4.
These
Local
Laws
are
invalid for two
reasons:
first,
they
are
preemptedby
State and
federal laws;
and second,
they
unlawfully
curtail
executivepowers
vested
in
the
Mayor
by
the
New
YorkCity
Charter
("Charter")
and transfer
mayoral
powers
to
the
Comptroller.
Under the Charter
and
the
Municipal
Home Rule
Law
("MHRL"),
any
changes
in the allocation
of
powersamong the branches and
officials
of City
governmentare
invalid
unless approved
by
the
voters
in
a
referendum,
and these
Local
Lawswere not
so
approved.
Preemption
5.
Both LocalLaws are
inconsistent
with,
and
preempted
by,
the
State's
minimum
wage
law,
codified
as
Labor
Law
Art.
19,
$$
650
et
seq.,
which,
under
governing
Court
of
Appealsprecedent, preempts
all
local
wage
regulation
save
for
narrow
exceptions thatare
inapplicable
to
these
Local
Laws.
They
are also
in
violation
of MHRL
$ll(1)(Ð,
whichprohibitslocalities
from
adopting any
local law
supersedinga State
statute
if
that law"applies
toor affects
any
provision
of
.
.
.
the
labor
law."
These
Local Laws
constitute
an
effort to
impose
a
regulatory
minimum
wage upon
sectors
of
the
City
econofry, a
subject matter
reserved
to
the
State
under
applicableCourt
of
Appeals
precedent.
6.
Second,
both
Local
Laws
are inconsistent
with,
andpreempted
by,
the
New
York
State
Industrial
Development
Agency
Act("IDA
Act"),
codified
as General
Municipal
2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->