Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Exhibit
Exhibit D
D
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
2285E/"
SUPREME COURT OCF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SUBMITTED
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT
rr nr renner en erence === X To Be Argued By:
SANFORD M. COHEN
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by :
ROBERT ABRAMS, Attorney General of the Time Requested:
State of New York, : 15 Minutes
Plaintiffs-Respondents, :
-against- E
Rockland County
THE TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, Index No. 7798/87
Defendant-Appellant.
BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-~RESPONDENTS
ROBERT ABRAMS
Attorney General of the
State of New York
Attorney for
Plaintiffs—Respondents
120 Broadway
Suite 23-160
New York, New York 10271
Tel: (212) 341-2249
SANFORD M. COHEN
Assistant Attorney General
of Counsel
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARGUMENT
POINT I: DEFENDANT'S LOCAL LAWS
PURPORTING TO REGULATE DAY
CARE IN A FAMILY HOME ARE VOID
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRE-
EMPTED THE ENTIRE FIELD OF REGULA™ION 17
A. The Legislature has Pre-empted
Local Regulation of Day-Care
in a Family Home. .... * . 19
Municipalities retain no authority
to regulate the provision of
day care in a family home . 31
POINT II: EVEN IF THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT
PRE-EMPTED THE ENTIRE FIELD OF FAMILY
DAY CARE REGULATION DEFENDANT'S
REGULATIONS ARE VOID BECAUSE THEY
CONFLICT WITH WITH STATE LAW AND POLICY. 35
A. A Local Law that Conflicts
with State Law is Void. . 35
B. The State has Repeatedly Sought
to Expand the Availability of
Regulated Day Care. ... 37
Defendant's Regulations Re-
stricting the Availability
of Family Day Care Conflict
with State Law and -mpede the
Effectuation of State Policy. 41
CONCLUSION 44
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
si
d
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Page
Abbott Home v. Village of Tarrytown,
34 A.D. 24
821 (2d Dep't 1970)... . . os) fe 3 lee Ie 36
City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 34
N.¥.2d. 300 (1974) ~ SCLC; Be Fee rip 28,36
Con Ed _v. Town of Red Hook,
60 N.Y.2d. 99 (188%)... 2... 2... . assim
Crane Neck v. County Services,
61 N.Y¥.2d 154, cert. denied, 469
U.S. 804 (1984). . * e * . . s * ° . ° e * 28
Dougal v. County of Suffolk,
102 A.D.2d 531 (24 Dept. 1984) ......, 23
Floyd v. New York State Urban Dev.
Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 1 (1973... . aued 6h ve) ates 36
Frew Run Gravel Products Inc. v.
Town of Carroll, 71 N.Y.2a 126
(1987) . 2 e . e . e . e *- ° e oe *. o . . 33,34
F.T.B. Realty Corp. v. Goodman 300 N.Y.
140 (1949)... . Mise Jel “e mar oe Ml tae or scm! 32,35
Group House of Port Washington,
Inc. v.
Board of Zoning, 45 N.Y.2d
266 (1978) .... OHSECUN EO SCS al slog a. 286,36
Ibero-American Action League v. Palma,
47 A.D.2u 998 (4th Dep't 1975 is. 6 ia 29
inc. Village of Freeport v. Association
for Help of Retarded Children,
94 Misc. 24 1048 (Sup. Ct. Nassau
Co.), affd, 60 A.D.2da 644 (2d Dept.
DPS ere wwe Wk wie « 3 «ol cme etisenke of mG 28
Jancyn Mfg. Co. v. Suffolk County,
71N.Y.2d 91 (1987 ..~.~«:~«wO”:~*«W OB 0-0 Gled) tec 18,20,23,32
Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society
v. Town of Woodbury, 230 A.D. 228
(24 Dep't 1930), affd, 256 N.Y. 619
(1931) . . ry e ° . e . e e e e ° s e ° e . . 36
ii
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Little Neck Community Ass'n v.
Working Organization for
Retarded Children, 52 A.D.2d 90
(2d Dep't.), app. denied, 40 N.Y.
Zoggs (LIFES 7 Fees ee tLe we Re 28
Matter of Marcus v. Baron, 57 N.Y.2d
S62 UESS2his a wie 2 - Co sie « @ @.cuele * @ 35
Matter of Unitarian Church v. Shorten,
63 Misc.2d 978 (Sup. Ct. Nassau
Coe IO) 1 turn eine, 3 ko) Sivas as Sede o 3 29,30,36
Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill
v. Town of Caledonia, 51 N.Y.2d
OTS (USSOF a ee 6 Sn fe fe ee 8 ee ws 19
New York State Club Ass'n v. City
of New York, 69 N.¥.2d 211 (1987) ...... 18,32
People v. Cook, 34 N.¥.2d 100 (1974) ...... 19
People v. DeJesus, 54 N.Y.2d 465 (1981) .... 18,20,23,35
People v. Halloran, (Sup. Ct. A.T., 9th
and 10th Jud. Dist.), app denied,
70 N.¥.2d 647 (1987) «2. 2. 2 2 ew we ew we ws 16,19,25,27
People v. New York Trap Rock Corp.,
a7 Neveed S71 “CRS wok 6 1 ~~ S Sow ls ws 19
People v. Renaissance Project, 36
N.Y.2d 65 (1976). s * e a ° e e « e 7 ° e *. ° 35
Robin v. Incorporated Vil of
Hempstead, 30 N.¥.2d 347 (1972) ......-s. 19,22,32
Wholesale Laundry Bd. v. City
of New York, 12 N.Y¥.2d 998
(1963) e e a ci] . J e e e ri] os oe e . @ os » * 2 32,35
Zubli v. Community Mainstreaming Associates,
50 N.Y. 2d 1024 (1980)... . 1. 1. 2 ew © ww 28
Constitution, Statutes and Regulations
N.¥. Constitution art. IX, section 2...+..s. 18
Environmental Conservation Law
§ 23-2703 (2) e ° ° . e eo }@ o e -@ ° . . *_ 2*- «© @ 34
Mental Hygiene Law §41.34. . . 1. « « «© «© » e « « 27,28
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Social Services Law
Social Services Law
Social Se:vices Law *
Social Services Law
Social Services Law
38
Social Services Law
5,25,40,41
Social Services Law
5,25,38,41
Social Services Law
39
Social Services Law
5,24,25,39
1988 N.Y. Laws, ch.
25,40
1987 N.Y. Laws, ch.
38
1987 N.Y. Laws, ch.
24,25,39
1987 N.Y. Laws, ch. 38
1986 N.Y. Laws, ch. 25,39
1986 N.Y. Laws, ch.
6,25,31,38
1985 N.Y. Laws, ch.
5,24,39,41
1985 N.Y. Laws, ch.
37,35
1969 N.Y. Laws, ch. 1013 25,38
18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 416
18 N.Y.C.R.R. §417.1 et seq.
18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 418 .
Town cf Clarkstown Zoning
Ordinance § 106 .
Other Authorities
New York State Council on Children
and Families, 1 Trends, No. 2
(January 1985). 7. .
iv
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Norlandor Casting a Blind Eye:
Regulation of Family Day Care
in New York State (1986) ..
Task Force on Women's Issues, Summar
of Legislation (March 1985). Se ec se & te 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT
eee ren nnn --- --------------- ------------ X
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by 3
ROBERT ABRAMS, Attorney General of the : Rockland County
State of New York, Index No. 7798/87
Plaintiffs-Respondents, :
-against- 3
THE TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
eo So ES X
BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This appeal was taken by the Town of Clarkstown, the
defendant-appellant ("defendant"), from a judgment of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for the County of Rockland
(Stolarik, J.) entered on May 11, 1988 (R. 7-12). The judgment
declared void and enjoined enforcement of laws and regulations
adopted by defendant which purport to regulate the provision of
day care in a family home licensed under section 390 of the New
York Social Services Law. (R. 9-10). As the People of the State
of New York, plaintiffs-respondents ("plaintiffs"), demonstrate
below, the court below properly declared defendant's local laws
void and enjoined their enforcement because the Legislature has
pre-empted the field of regulation of family day care homes and
lap, __" references are to the pages of the Record on
Appeal.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
because the defendant's local laws conflict with state law and
policy.
Questions Presented
As Are defendant's laws, rules, and regulations which
purport to regulate the provision of day care in a family home
void because the Legislature has pre-empted local regulation of
family day care homes through its enactment of a comprehensive
statutory scheme regulating family day care and its declarations
of policy?
The court below concluded that the Legislature has
pre-empted local regulation of family day care.
720 Are defendant's laws, rules, and regulation which
purport to regulate the provision of day care in a family home
void because they com’lict with the State's policy to expand the
availability of licensed family day care?
The court below concluded that defendant's local laws,
rules, and regulations conflict with state law and policy and are
void.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Introduction
This case concerns a conflict between a New York State
program to expand the availability of safe, licensed day care for
children in family homes and the attempt of a municipality to
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
restrict the availability of family day care through the
purported exercise of its local powers.
Section 390 of the New York Social Services Law
("S.S.L.") authorizes the provision of day care in a family home
subject to stringent certification requirements contained in the
statute and in regulations promulated by ¢=« Commissioner of
Social Services. See 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 417. The Town of
Clarkstown ("Town") through its Zoning Ordéinance ("the
ordinance") and other local regulations, imposes conditions not
contained in state law on the opportunity to provide day care for
children in a family home and thereby prohibits individuals who
are authorized and certified under state law to provide day care
in their homes from doing so. Defendant enforces its local
restrictions by commencing criminal prosecutions in the Town
Justice Court acainst those it alleges have violated them.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiffs commenced this action for a declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief to challenge the Town's local
restrictions on family day care by serving a summons and
complaint (R. 42-58) on December 9, 1987. In the first cause of
action in their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the New York
Legislature, through its policy statements and its adoption of a
comprehensive regulatory scheme governing family day care, has
envinced its intent to pre-empt local regulation of family day
care homes. Plaintiffs alleged in their second cause of action
that defendant's regulations pertaining to family day care are
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
void because they prohibit what is permissible under state law
and impose prerequisite additional restrictions on rights under
state law.”
When they commenced this action, plaintiffs also
instituted a motion to enjoin preliminarily defendant's
enforcement of local laws that purport to regulate day care in a
family home by serving an order to show cause (R. 19-20) and
supporting affidavits. (R.21-66). By decision dated February
26, 1988, the court below preliminarily enjoined defendant's
enforcement of their local laws. (R. 12-14).
Foliowing a conference with the court, the parties
agreed to convert plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion to a
motion for summary judgment. (R. 15-18). Specifically, the
parties stipulated that the defendant's answer (R. 68-73) and the
affidavits submitted in opposition to plaintiff's preliminary
injunction motion (R. 74-95) did not create any issues of
material fact in need of resoluticn by trial. (R. 16). They
further stipulated that the court‘s decision on the motion for a
preliminary injunction would constitute a decision in plaintiff's
favor on the summary judgment motion and that a judgment in
plaintiff's favor would be entered. (R. 16). The court below
awarded judgment in plaintiff's favor on both causes of actions
and enjoined defendant's enforcement of local laws regulating
family day care. (R. 7-11). This appeal ensued.
2rhe Court of Appeals observed in Con Ed v. Town of Red
(Footnote Continued)
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Cc. Statement of Facts
185 New York's Family Day Care Program: The Regulatory
Scheme
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint (R. 53), and
defendant has not sought to controvert, that there is throughout
New York State a severe shortage of day care services for
children. Twenty years ago, New York, through its Legislature,
declared that it is the State's policy to promote the
availability of affordable day care services for children. The
Legislature then found that there is a serious shortage
throughout the State of facilities suitable for day care and
provided func ng to estaklish suitable facilities. See S.S.L.
§ 410-d et seq. More recently the Legislature found "that there
is a growing need to expand the availability of quality day care
services for children..." 1985 N.Y. Laws, ch.804, § 1, and
passed legislation to meet those needs. See also S.S.L.
§§ 410-p, 410-bb.°>
(Footnote Continued)
Hook, 60 N.¥.2d 99, 105 (1983), that "[w]Jhile these two
infirmities are often interrelated, each is in itself a
sufficient basis for invalidating a local law...."
33 Rockland County, where this case arose, as throughout
New York State, there is a severe shortage of day care facilities
for children. As of October 1987, two month before the
commencement of this action, there were only 68 certified family
day care homes in all of Rockland County. Brand Aff. q 3. (R.
31). Of these, 29 provided care for children subsidized by the
Rockland County Department of Social Services, leaving very few
spaces for children who need such care but who did not qualify
for public subsidies, (R. 31-32). In addition, day care centers
in Rockland County have long waiting lists, requiring children to
wait many months before they are admitted. Brand Aff. q 4 (R.
(Footnote Continued)
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
The State has also declared its policy to promote
regulated day care in order to ensure the safety of children in
need of such services:
The legislature finds that our children are this
stave'’s most precious natural resource and, as
such, are deserving of high quality care and
attention, especially during the critical early
formative years. The legislature recognizes that
many parents are either working or training for
employment and must allow others to provide care
for their children. It is in the best interest of
the State to make certain that such care is
regulated so that each child may be free from
harm, injury or the threat thereof. Disregard of
such regulations often results in small, congested
and overcrowed centers which place the child's
safety and well-being at risk.
1986 N.Y. Laws, ch. 790, § 1 (emphasis supplied)
In furtherance of the State's policy of encouraging the
expansion of regulated and safe day care services for children,
the legislature has enacted a comprehensive regulatory program
and has authorized the Department of Social Services ("D.S.S."%)
to promulgate regulations specifying the procedures for obtaining
a certificate or permit to provide services, and governing the
health and safety requirements of such services. $.S.L. § 390 et
seq.4 Under the statute, "day care in a family home" is a vital
(Footnote Continued)
32); Helbraun Aff. 4 4. (R. 35-36). Recent studies of day care
in New York State have disclosed that only one-third of the
364,000 New York children in need of licensed day care have such
"slots" available to them. Norlandor, Casting a Blind Eye:
Regulation of Family Day Care in New York State (1986) at 1
citing New York State Council on Children and Families, Trends
Vol. 2, No. 1 (January 1985) and Task Force on Women's Issues,
Summary of Legislation (March 1985).
4
S.S.L. § 390(1) provides, in pertinent part:
(Footnote Continued)
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
and integral part of the system of day care services authorized
by the State.” A person may provide day care in a residence for
up to six children at one time, or for up to eight children, if
at least two of the children are of school age who receive care
primarily during non-school hours. 5.S.L. § 390(2) and (6) .°
(Footnote Continued)
(a) Except as provided herein, no place, person,
association, corporation, institution or agency shall
provide day care for three or more children without a
permit therefor issued by the department, or otherwise
than in accordance with the terms of said permit and
with the regulations of the department for the
protection and care, including the health, safety,
treatment and training of children.
*« *& *&
(c) The department shall publish regulations
specifying the procedures for obtaining a permit or
certificate required pursuant to
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Exhibit Exhibit D D FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 2285E/" SUPREME COURT OCF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SUBMITTED APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT rr nr renner en erence === X To Be Argued By: SANFORD M. COHEN PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by : ROBERT ABRAMS, Attorney General of the Time Requested: State of New York, : 15 Minutes Plaintiffs-Respondents, : -against- E Rockland County THE TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, Index No. 7798/87 Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-~RESPONDENTS ROBERT ABRAMS Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Plaintiffs—Respondents 120 Broadway Suite 23-160 New York, New York 10271 Tel: (212) 341-2249 SANFORD M. COHEN Assistant Attorney General of Counsel FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT QUESTIONS PRESENTED STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT POINT I: DEFENDANT'S LOCAL LAWS PURPORTING TO REGULATE DAY CARE IN A FAMILY HOME ARE VOID BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRE- EMPTED THE ENTIRE FIELD OF REGULA™ION 17 A. The Legislature has Pre-empted Local Regulation of Day-Care in a Family Home. .... * . 19 Municipalities retain no authority to regulate the provision of day care in a family home . 31 POINT II: EVEN IF THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT PRE-EMPTED THE ENTIRE FIELD OF FAMILY DAY CARE REGULATION DEFENDANT'S REGULATIONS ARE VOID BECAUSE THEY CONFLICT WITH WITH STATE LAW AND POLICY. 35 A. A Local Law that Conflicts with State Law is Void. . 35 B. The State has Repeatedly Sought to Expand the Availability of Regulated Day Care. ... 37 Defendant's Regulations Re- stricting the Availability of Family Day Care Conflict with State Law and -mpede the Effectuation of State Policy. 41 CONCLUSION 44 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 si d - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Abbott Home v. Village of Tarrytown, 34 A.D. 24 821 (2d Dep't 1970)... . . os) fe 3 lee Ie 36 City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 34 N.¥.2d. 300 (1974) ~ SCLC; Be Fee rip 28,36 Con Ed _v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d. 99 (188%)... 2... 2... . assim Crane Neck v. County Services, 61 N.Y¥.2d 154, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 804 (1984). . * e * . . s * ° . ° e * 28 Dougal v. County of Suffolk, 102 A.D.2d 531 (24 Dept. 1984) ......, 23 Floyd v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 1 (1973... . aued 6h ve) ates 36 Frew Run Gravel Products Inc. v. Town of Carroll, 71 N.Y.2a 126 (1987) . 2 e . e . e . e *- ° e oe *. o . . 33,34 F.T.B. Realty Corp. v. Goodman 300 N.Y. 140 (1949)... . Mise Jel “e mar oe Ml tae or scm! 32,35 Group House of Port Washington, Inc. v. Board of Zoning, 45 N.Y.2d 266 (1978) .... OHSECUN EO SCS al slog a. 286,36 Ibero-American Action League v. Palma, 47 A.D.2u 998 (4th Dep't 1975 is. 6 ia 29 inc. Village of Freeport v. Association for Help of Retarded Children, 94 Misc. 24 1048 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co.), affd, 60 A.D.2da 644 (2d Dept. DPS ere wwe Wk wie « 3 «ol cme etisenke of mG 28 Jancyn Mfg. Co. v. Suffolk County, 71N.Y.2d 91 (1987 ..~.~«:~«wO”:~*«W OB 0-0 Gled) tec 18,20,23,32 Jewish Consumptives' Relief Society v. Town of Woodbury, 230 A.D. 228 (24 Dep't 1930), affd, 256 N.Y. 619 (1931) . . ry e ° . e . e e e e ° s e ° e . . 36 ii FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Little Neck Community Ass'n v. Working Organization for Retarded Children, 52 A.D.2d 90 (2d Dep't.), app. denied, 40 N.Y. Zoggs (LIFES 7 Fees ee tLe we Re 28 Matter of Marcus v. Baron, 57 N.Y.2d S62 UESS2his a wie 2 - Co sie « @ @.cuele * @ 35 Matter of Unitarian Church v. Shorten, 63 Misc.2d 978 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Coe IO) 1 turn eine, 3 ko) Sivas as Sede o 3 29,30,36 Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v. Town of Caledonia, 51 N.Y.2d OTS (USSOF a ee 6 Sn fe fe ee 8 ee ws 19 New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 69 N.¥.2d 211 (1987) ...... 18,32 People v. Cook, 34 N.¥.2d 100 (1974) ...... 19 People v. DeJesus, 54 N.Y.2d 465 (1981) .... 18,20,23,35 People v. Halloran, (Sup. Ct. A.T., 9th and 10th Jud. Dist.), app denied, 70 N.¥.2d 647 (1987) «2. 2. 2 2 ew we ew we ws 16,19,25,27 People v. New York Trap Rock Corp., a7 Neveed S71 “CRS wok 6 1 ~~ S Sow ls ws 19 People v. Renaissance Project, 36 N.Y.2d 65 (1976). s * e a ° e e « e 7 ° e *. ° 35 Robin v. Incorporated Vil of Hempstead, 30 N.¥.2d 347 (1972) ......-s. 19,22,32 Wholesale Laundry Bd. v. City of New York, 12 N.Y¥.2d 998 (1963) e e a ci] . J e e e ri] os oe e . @ os » * 2 32,35 Zubli v. Community Mainstreaming Associates, 50 N.Y. 2d 1024 (1980)... . 1. 1. 2 ew © ww 28 Constitution, Statutes and Regulations N.¥. Constitution art. IX, section 2...+..s. 18 Environmental Conservation Law § 23-2703 (2) e ° ° . e eo }@ o e -@ ° . . *_ 2*- «© @ 34 Mental Hygiene Law §41.34. . . 1. « « «© «© » e « « 27,28 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Social Services Law Social Services Law Social Se:vices Law * Social Services Law Social Services Law 38 Social Services Law 5,25,40,41 Social Services Law 5,25,38,41 Social Services Law 39 Social Services Law 5,24,25,39 1988 N.Y. Laws, ch. 25,40 1987 N.Y. Laws, ch. 38 1987 N.Y. Laws, ch. 24,25,39 1987 N.Y. Laws, ch. 38 1986 N.Y. Laws, ch. 25,39 1986 N.Y. Laws, ch. 6,25,31,38 1985 N.Y. Laws, ch. 5,24,39,41 1985 N.Y. Laws, ch. 37,35 1969 N.Y. Laws, ch. 1013 25,38 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 416 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §417.1 et seq. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 418 . Town cf Clarkstown Zoning Ordinance § 106 . Other Authorities New York State Council on Children and Families, 1 Trends, No. 2 (January 1985). 7. . iv FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Norlandor Casting a Blind Eye: Regulation of Family Day Care in New York State (1986) .. Task Force on Women's Issues, Summar of Legislation (March 1985). Se ec se & te 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT eee ren nnn --- --------------- ------------ X PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by 3 ROBERT ABRAMS, Attorney General of the : Rockland County State of New York, Index No. 7798/87 Plaintiffs-Respondents, : -against- 3 THE TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, : Defendant-Appellant. : eo So ES X BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This appeal was taken by the Town of Clarkstown, the defendant-appellant ("defendant"), from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Rockland (Stolarik, J.) entered on May 11, 1988 (R. 7-12). The judgment declared void and enjoined enforcement of laws and regulations adopted by defendant which purport to regulate the provision of day care in a family home licensed under section 390 of the New York Social Services Law. (R. 9-10). As the People of the State of New York, plaintiffs-respondents ("plaintiffs"), demonstrate below, the court below properly declared defendant's local laws void and enjoined their enforcement because the Legislature has pre-empted the field of regulation of family day care homes and lap, __" references are to the pages of the Record on Appeal. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 because the defendant's local laws conflict with state law and policy. Questions Presented As Are defendant's laws, rules, and regulations which purport to regulate the provision of day care in a family home void because the Legislature has pre-empted local regulation of family day care homes through its enactment of a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating family day care and its declarations of policy? The court below concluded that the Legislature has pre-empted local regulation of family day care. 720 Are defendant's laws, rules, and regulation which purport to regulate the provision of day care in a family home void because they com’lict with the State's policy to expand the availability of licensed family day care? The court below concluded that defendant's local laws, rules, and regulations conflict with state law and policy and are void. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Introduction This case concerns a conflict between a New York State program to expand the availability of safe, licensed day care for children in family homes and the attempt of a municipality to FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 restrict the availability of family day care through the purported exercise of its local powers. Section 390 of the New York Social Services Law ("S.S.L.") authorizes the provision of day care in a family home subject to stringent certification requirements contained in the statute and in regulations promulated by ¢=« Commissioner of Social Services. See 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 417. The Town of Clarkstown ("Town") through its Zoning Ordéinance ("the ordinance") and other local regulations, imposes conditions not contained in state law on the opportunity to provide day care for children in a family home and thereby prohibits individuals who are authorized and certified under state law to provide day care in their homes from doing so. Defendant enforces its local restrictions by commencing criminal prosecutions in the Town Justice Court acainst those it alleges have violated them. B. Procedural History Plaintiffs commenced this action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to challenge the Town's local restrictions on family day care by serving a summons and complaint (R. 42-58) on December 9, 1987. In the first cause of action in their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the New York Legislature, through its policy statements and its adoption of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing family day care, has envinced its intent to pre-empt local regulation of family day care homes. Plaintiffs alleged in their second cause of action that defendant's regulations pertaining to family day care are FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 void because they prohibit what is permissible under state law and impose prerequisite additional restrictions on rights under state law.” When they commenced this action, plaintiffs also instituted a motion to enjoin preliminarily defendant's enforcement of local laws that purport to regulate day care in a family home by serving an order to show cause (R. 19-20) and supporting affidavits. (R.21-66). By decision dated February 26, 1988, the court below preliminarily enjoined defendant's enforcement of their local laws. (R. 12-14). Foliowing a conference with the court, the parties agreed to convert plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion to a motion for summary judgment. (R. 15-18). Specifically, the parties stipulated that the defendant's answer (R. 68-73) and the affidavits submitted in opposition to plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion (R. 74-95) did not create any issues of material fact in need of resoluticn by trial. (R. 16). They further stipulated that the court‘s decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction would constitute a decision in plaintiff's favor on the summary judgment motion and that a judgment in plaintiff's favor would be entered. (R. 16). The court below awarded judgment in plaintiff's favor on both causes of actions and enjoined defendant's enforcement of local laws regulating family day care. (R. 7-11). This appeal ensued. 2rhe Court of Appeals observed in Con Ed v. Town of Red (Footnote Continued) FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Cc. Statement of Facts 185 New York's Family Day Care Program: The Regulatory Scheme Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint (R. 53), and defendant has not sought to controvert, that there is throughout New York State a severe shortage of day care services for children. Twenty years ago, New York, through its Legislature, declared that it is the State's policy to promote the availability of affordable day care services for children. The Legislature then found that there is a serious shortage throughout the State of facilities suitable for day care and provided func ng to estaklish suitable facilities. See S.S.L. § 410-d et seq. More recently the Legislature found "that there is a growing need to expand the availability of quality day care services for children..." 1985 N.Y. Laws, ch.804, § 1, and passed legislation to meet those needs. See also S.S.L. §§ 410-p, 410-bb.°> (Footnote Continued) Hook, 60 N.¥.2d 99, 105 (1983), that "[w]Jhile these two infirmities are often interrelated, each is in itself a sufficient basis for invalidating a local law...." 33 Rockland County, where this case arose, as throughout New York State, there is a severe shortage of day care facilities for children. As of October 1987, two month before the commencement of this action, there were only 68 certified family day care homes in all of Rockland County. Brand Aff. q 3. (R. 31). Of these, 29 provided care for children subsidized by the Rockland County Department of Social Services, leaving very few spaces for children who need such care but who did not qualify for public subsidies, (R. 31-32). In addition, day care centers in Rockland County have long waiting lists, requiring children to wait many months before they are admitted. Brand Aff. q 4 (R. (Footnote Continued) FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 The State has also declared its policy to promote regulated day care in order to ensure the safety of children in need of such services: The legislature finds that our children are this stave'’s most precious natural resource and, as such, are deserving of high quality care and attention, especially during the critical early formative years. The legislature recognizes that many parents are either working or training for employment and must allow others to provide care for their children. It is in the best interest of the State to make certain that such care is regulated so that each child may be free from harm, injury or the threat thereof. Disregard of such regulations often results in small, congested and overcrowed centers which place the child's safety and well-being at risk. 1986 N.Y. Laws, ch. 790, § 1 (emphasis supplied) In furtherance of the State's policy of encouraging the expansion of regulated and safe day care services for children, the legislature has enacted a comprehensive regulatory program and has authorized the Department of Social Services ("D.S.S."%) to promulgate regulations specifying the procedures for obtaining a certificate or permit to provide services, and governing the health and safety requirements of such services. $.S.L. § 390 et seq.4 Under the statute, "day care in a family home" is a vital (Footnote Continued) 32); Helbraun Aff. 4 4. (R. 35-36). Recent studies of day care in New York State have disclosed that only one-third of the 364,000 New York children in need of licensed day care have such "slots" available to them. Norlandor, Casting a Blind Eye: Regulation of Family Day Care in New York State (1986) at 1 citing New York State Council on Children and Families, Trends Vol. 2, No. 1 (January 1985) and Task Force on Women's Issues, Summary of Legislation (March 1985). 4 S.S.L. § 390(1) provides, in pertinent part: (Footnote Continued) FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 05:56 PM INDEX NO. 450563/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 and integral part of the system of day care services authorized by the State.” A person may provide day care in a residence for up to six children at one time, or for up to eight children, if at least two of the children are of school age who receive care primarily during non-school hours. 5.S.L. § 390(2) and (6) .° (Footnote Continued) (a) Except as provided herein, no place, person, association, corporation, institution or agency shall provide day care for three or more children without a permit therefor issued by the department, or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of said permit and with the regulations of the department for the protection and care, including the health, safety, treatment and training of children. *« *& *& (c) The department shall publish regulations specifying the procedures for obtaining a permit or certificate required pursuant to