Hoerger v. Spota
997 N.E.2d 1229, 21 N.Y.3d 549 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local county government lacks the authority to impose term limits on the office of District Attorney, as the DA is a state constitutional officer whose qualifications are comprehensively regulated by state law, and such a limit constitutes an improper additional qualification for office.
Facts:
- The Suffolk County Legislature enacted Local Law No. 27-1993, which imposed term limits on various county officials.
- After approval by public referendum, the law was added to the Suffolk County Charter, specifying that 'No person shall serve as District Attorney for more than 12 consecutive years.'
- Thomas J. Spota III was first elected as the Suffolk County District Attorney in 2001.
- As of December 31, 2013, Spota had served three consecutive four-year terms, totaling the 12-year maximum under the local law.
- Despite the local term limit, Spota was designated as a candidate for District Attorney by the Democratic, Republican, Independence, and Conservative Parties for the upcoming election.
- Raymond G. Perini, another candidate for District Attorney in the Republican primary, challenged Spota's eligibility to run.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners-objectors filed objections to respondent Thomas J. Spota's designating petitions with the Suffolk County Board of Elections.
- Petitioners commenced a special proceeding in the Supreme Court (New York's trial-level court) seeking to invalidate Spota's designating petitions.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
- Petitioners, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, with two justices dissenting.
- Petitioners appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) based on the dissent in the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county have the authority under state law to impose term limits on the office of District Attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A county is without the power to regulate the number of terms a district attorney may serve because the office is a state constitutional office subject to comprehensive regulation by state law. The District Attorney is established by the State Constitution, and the state legislature sets the term of office. Furthermore, the Governor, not county officials, holds the power of removal and appointment for vacancies, indicating the office's state-level character. The court reasoned that qualifications for District Attorney must be uniform statewide, and a locally imposed term limit constitutes an improper additional qualification. Allowing counties to impose such limits could also impair the independence of the office by empowering local legislators to end the tenure of a DA whose prosecutorial actions are unpopular with them.
Dissenting - Smith, J.
Yes. A county does have the authority to impose term limits on its District Attorney. The State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law explicitly empower local governments to adopt laws relating to the 'qualifications' and 'terms of office' of their own officers. The dissent argues that while the state has the power to prohibit such term limits, it has not passed any statute doing so. The majority's premise that the DA is a state constitutional officer is irrelevant without an actual state law that is inconsistent with the county's local law. There is no overriding necessity for statewide uniformity on this issue, and deciding whether such uniformity is desirable is a matter for the state legislature, not the court.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the status of District Attorneys as state officers operating at a local level, thereby insulating them from certain forms of local political control. By classifying term limits as a 'qualification' for office, the court placed this issue squarely within the domain of state preemption, preventing counties from altering the eligibility requirements for DAs. This reinforces the principle of prosecutorial independence from local legislative bodies and ensures that the standards for holding the office remain uniform across New York State. The ruling effectively prevents a patchwork of local eligibility rules for an office charged with the statewide function of enforcing the Penal Law.
