‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK — NEW YORK COUNTY s0To Be PRESENT: FAVIOLA Part 9X Testis 0401512/2003 i MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK eae x ‘ I COUNCIL OF CITY OF NEW YORK | momow ore Qchdlose 13 204 Horio se. no. ; | spat | orion cat. wo. | SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘The following papers, numbered 1 to Were read on this motion to/for PAPERS NUMBERED. Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause ~ Affidavits — Exhibit Podict of Crooss-Mo nen - HEE chaeits - ‘Answering Affidavits — Exhibits — Replying Affidavits Cross-Motion: © Yes [1 No Upon the foregoing papers, itis ordered that this motion amd crs ou hen FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): aoe. MOTION4S DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH | THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM DECISIONS wognenk MOTION/CASE IS RESPECTFULLY REFERRED TO JUSTICE davai DyRpboe \B 2e04 Check one: VM FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: C1 DO NOT Post TSG C1 NQN-FAVAL DISPOSITION‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 52 ‘THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, Index No. 401512/03 + against - ‘THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and EVELYN DAVILA, NORMA MENDEZ, MILAGROS DIAZ, ANTONINE LINDOR, DIANE I. and ELSA DECISION & ORDER ESPINAL, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendant-Intervenors. HONORABLE FAVIOLA A. SOTO, Before the court are a motion and cross-motion for summary judgment on the validity of welfare to work program, Local Law 23 of 2003, which was passed by the Couneil of the City of New York (the Council) on April 9, 2003, over a mayoral veto. Entitled Education and Training for Public Assistance Recipients, Local Law 23 is codified at Chapter 7 of Title 21 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (Admin, Code), §§ 21-701 - 21-706. The parties appeared for oral argument on October 13, 2004. In motion sequence number 001, plaintiff the Mayor of the City of New York (the Mayor) argues that he is entitled to summary judgment in this action for declaratory judgment that Local Law 23 is invalid, as the responsibility of developing welfare to work programs belongs exclusively to the Mayor's appointee, the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) Commissioner (City Commissioner), and that the Council may not intrude upon that duty. ‘The Couneil cross-moves for summary judgment declaring that the law is valid and ordering the Mayor to abide by its provisions. Previously, by orders dated August 13, 2004 and October 6, 2004, the court granted the‘motion of defendant-intervenors for an order permitting them to intervene in this action (motion sequence number 002), and the motion of Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat, Chairman of the ‘New York State Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus, on behalf of the Caucus and its members, for leave to appear as amici in support of defendant and defendant-intervenors (motion sequence 003). The Mayor objects to the Council’s enactment on three grounds: 1) Local Law 23 is inconsistent with state law regulating education and training for public assistance recipients, found at Title 9-B of the New York State Social Services Law (SSL) §§ 330 - 342, entitled Public Assistance Employment Programs, and at Title 12, Chapter XIV, 12 NYCRR 1300 - 1300.13; 2) Local Law 23 is preempted by state law; and 3) Local Law 23 curtails the power of the mayoral appointee charged with the responsibility of creating and administering such programs, that is, the City Commissioner. Under Municipal Home Rule Law [MHRL] § 23 (2) (®, a local law that so interferes with the power of an elected official, here the Mayor, must be subject to a public referendum, which Local Law 23 was not. The State Department of Labor requires that all social services districts, of which New ‘York City is one, develop a plan to furnish public assistance recipients with education, training, and necessary services, such as child care, so that they may achieve economic independence. Participation in education and employment is a condition to receiving public assistance grants. Title 9-B enumerates a wide array of educational and work activities that local districts may provide to public assistance recipients, and also provides that districts may operate programs not named therein (SSL § 336 [5], (6]), subject to State approval. The Commissioner must submit to the State Department of Labor "for approval a biennial plan for the provision of education, work,