Albany Area Builders Association v. Guilderland
New York Court of Appeals
74 N.Y.2d 372, 547 N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920 (1989)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The Town Board (the board) of the Town of Guilderland (the town) (defendant) adopted a local law, the Transportation Impact Fee Law (TIFL), that required building-permit applicants who sought to make a change in land use that would generate additional traffic to pay a transportation impact fee when the permit was issued. Albany Area Builders Association (the builders’ association) (plaintiff) challenged the town’s authority to enact TIFL. The builders’ association argued that the town did not have the constitutional or statutory authority to enact TIFL, the impact fees were not permissible land-use regulations, and that TIFL was inconsistent with state laws. The builders’ association claimed that because the state legislature had adopted the Town Law and Highway Law that regulated the field of highway funding, it preempted local legislation on the subject. The Town Law and Highway Law regulated how roadway improvements were budgeted, how improvements were financed, and how money for improvements was to be expended. The town argued that TIFL was a permissible land-use regulation authorized by the Municipal Home Rule Law. The appellate division declared TIFL invalid and concluded that the town did not have the statutory authority to enact TIFL and that TIFL was preempted by general laws regulating the funding of roadway improvements. Leave to appeal was granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.