In New York, is the district attorney required to prosecute violations of a village's local laws and ordinances?

Plain-English summary

The Village of Penn Yan asked what would happen if the village board did not authorize the village attorney or another village officer to prosecute violations of village laws. Specifically, did that vacuum force the county district attorney to step in and prosecute every village ordinance violation in the village?

The Attorney General's office said no. The DA's prosecutorial responsibility under County Law § 700(1) covers all crimes and offenses occurring in the county, but the case law (People v Van Sickle, People v Czajka) lets the DA arrange for others to appear on the DA's behalf in petty cases as long as the DA stays informed and consents to those appearances. Village Law § 20-2006(2) gives the village board authority to grant the village attorney or another attorney responsibility for prosecuting violations of village regulations, with reasonable compensation. The opinion treats those two arrangements as the workable system: the DA can let village officers, the village attorney, or even private attorneys handle local-regulation prosecutions while focusing DA resources on serious crime.

The opinion frames this as a matter of practical resource allocation, not as a hard rule. The DA has wide prosecutorial discretion and can decide not to prosecute violations of village ordinances when those office resources are needed elsewhere. That means if the village does not authorize its own attorney to handle prosecutions and the DA also declines, the violations may simply go unprosecuted. The opinion does not suggest the DA is obligated to fill that gap.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Who can prosecute village ordinance violations under this opinion?
A: Several options. Under Village Law § 20-2006(2), the village board can authorize its village attorney or another attorney to do it. Under the Van Sickle/Czajka line of cases, local officers, police officers, municipal attorneys, or private attorneys can prosecute petty cases on the DA's behalf when the DA consents to the arrangement. The DA can also prosecute directly if office resources allow.

Q: What if the DA doesn't consent to anyone else prosecuting?
A: The Van Sickle rule requires the DA's knowledge and consent for non-DA appearances. If the DA refused to consent, local officers would not be able to step in under the Van Sickle path. The village would have to either rely on the DA to prosecute or get its village board to authorize the village attorney under Village Law § 20-2006(2), which is the village's own statutory authority and does not depend on DA consent.

Q: Can the DA refuse to prosecute serious village offenses?
A: The opinion limits itself to "petty crimes and offenses" and "violations of local regulations." Serious crimes (felonies, significant misdemeanors) under state law are the DA's core responsibility under County Law § 700(1) and prosecutorial discretion would not justify wholesale refusal. The opinion's logic is about routine ordinance enforcement, not state criminal law.

Q: Does this rule apply outside villages?
A: The opinion is framed around villages, but the underlying principles (DA prosecutorial discretion, Van Sickle's allowance of non-DA appearances, statutory authority for municipal attorneys to prosecute) apply to towns and cities as well, with each having its own statutory framework parallel to Village Law § 20-2006(2).

Q: What if the village attorney charges for the work?
A: Village Law § 20-2006(2) expressly authorizes "reasonable compensation" for an attorney prosecuting violations of village regulations. The arrangement is contractual: the village pays the attorney for the prosecution services it authorizes.

Background and statutory framework

The DA's prosecutorial authority comes from County Law § 700(1), which makes the DA responsible for conducting prosecutions of crimes and offenses in the county. The Court of Appeals, in People v Van Sickle, 13 N.Y.2d 61 (1963), and People v Czajka, 11 N.Y.2d 253 (1962), held that this responsibility does not require the DA or assistants to personally appear in every case. The DA can authorize others to handle petty matters as long as the DA knows about the prosecutions and consents to the arrangement.

Village Law § 20-2006(2) is a parallel grant of authority. It lets the village board authorize the village attorney (or another attorney) to prosecute violations of village regulations, with reasonable compensation. That authority sits inside the village's own structure and does not depend on the DA's consent for its existence (though practical coordination is sensible).

The combination of these provisions is a flexible system. When a village wants to enforce its ordinances, it can authorize its own attorney to do the prosecuting. When it does not, the DA decides whether to prosecute or to rely on local officers under Van Sickle, taking account of office resources and the seriousness of the violations.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• N.Y. County Law § 700 (district attorney's prosecutorial authority)
• N.Y. Village Law § 20-2006 (village attorney prosecution authority)

Cases:

• People v Van Sickle, 13 N.Y.2d 61 (1963) (DA need not personally prosecute every petty offense)
• People v Czajka, 11 N.Y.2d 253 (1962) (local officers may prosecute petty cases with DA consent)

Prior AG opinions:

• 1979 Op Atty Gen 28
• 1979 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 245
• 1958 Op Atty Gen 117, 119
• Informal Opinion No. 86-61

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_96-31_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

COUNTY LAW § 700(1); VILLAGE LAW § 20-2006(2).
The district attorney is not required to prosecute
violations of village local laws.
September 19, 1996

Anthony J. Geraci, Esq.
Village Attorney
Village of Penn Yan
315 Main Street
Penn Yan, NY 14527-0384

Informal Opinion
No. 96-31

Dear Mr. Geraci:
You have asked, in the event that the board of trustees of a
village does not authorize the village attorney, code enforcement
officer or other village officers to prosecute violations of
village laws and regulations, whether the district attorney is
required to prosecute these violations.
The district attorney has responsibility to conduct
prosecutions of crimes and offenses occurring within the county.
County Law § 700(1). It has been recognized, however, that the
district attorney and his assistants need not personally
prosecute every offense committed within their jurisdiction.
People v Van Sickle, 13 NY2d 61 (1963); People v Czajka, 11 NY2d
253 (1962). To fulfill his prosecutorial responsibility, the
district attorney can make arrangements whereby he knows of all
prosecutions in the county and consents to appearances on his
behalf. People v Van Sickle, supra; 1979 Op Atty Gen 28; 1979
Op Atty Gen (Inf) 245. Thereafter, "[p]etty crimes and offenses"
may be prosecuted, for example, by local officers, municipal
attorneys, police officers and private attorneys. People v
Van Sickle, supra; People v Czajka, supra; 1979 Op Atty Gen 28.
We note that section 20-2006(2) of the Village Law
authorizes the board of trustees of a village to grant to a
village attorney or other attorney the responsibility to
prosecute violations of village regulations and authorizes
reasonable compensation for this service. Informal Opinion
No. 86-61.
The prosecution of violations of local regulations by local
officials and others may be necessitated by the limited resources
of the district attorney's office. The district attorney has
wide discretion in the prosecution of offenses occurring within

2

the county and may determine that effective use of his or her
office's resources does not permit prosecution of local
regulations by assistant district attorneys. 1958 Op Atty Gen
117, 119. The resources of the district attorney's office may be
fully required in the investigation and prosecution of serious
offenses occurring within the county. Under these circumstances,
it may be necessary to rely upon local officials, such as
municipal attorneys, to prosecute violations of local regulations
of a particular municipality.
We conclude that the district attorney is not required to
prosecute violations of village local regulations. The district
attorney may determine, in consideration of available office
resources, that it is necessary to concentrate on prosecution of
serious crimes.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
in Charge of Opinions