Can a New York town pass a local law to keep part of the fines its justice court collects on village violations?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Dryden raised a common frustration: when its town justice court hears violations of a village local law and the village does not have its own justice court, the town pays the cost of running the court, but the resulting fines flow to the village under UJCA § 2021(2). The town wanted to know whether it could enact a local law to keep some of those fines to offset the cost.

The AG answered no. Two doctrines combine to block the move.

First, the supersession power. Under Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3), a town can amend or supersede provisions of the Town Law that fall within the town's home rule authority. It cannot use that power to amend or supersede provisions of other statutes. UJCA § 2021 is not in the Town Law. It is in the Uniform Justice Court Act. The supersession lever does not reach it.

Second, the courts carve-out. Even apart from supersession, MHRL § 11(1)(e) forbids local laws that supersede a State statute applying to or affecting the courts. UJCA § 2021 is exactly that kind of statute. Local laws have to be consistent with general state laws under MHRL § 10, and § 11(1)(e) puts a hard ceiling on local lawmaking when it would change how courts handle fines, fees, or procedures.

The opinion notes the underlying policy: L 1991 ch 460 (which added UJCA § 2021(2)) was a Comptroller-sponsored cleanup intended to confirm existing practice on how fines, penalties, and forfeitures flow between town and village justice courts. The Legislature settled the rule; only the Legislature can change it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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

Why does the village get the fine if the town's court does the work?

UJCA § 2021(2) makes fines from violations of a village local law the property of the village, regardless of which court collects them and regardless of whether the village even has its own justice court. The Legislature set that allocation deliberately when it enacted L 1991 ch 460.

Can the town recover its expenses some other way?

The opinion does not address cost-sharing arrangements. In practice, towns sometimes negotiate intermunicipal agreements with villages covering shared services or court-related costs. The AG's conclusion is only that the fine-distribution rule itself cannot be changed by town local law.

What is supersession authority?

Under MHRL § 10, towns and certain other local governments can adopt local laws "in case of inconsistency with provisions of the Town Law" to amend or supersede specified Town Law provisions. The supersession power is what lets a town tweak parts of the Town Law to suit local conditions. It is bounded by the listed subject categories and by the general state-law and courts limits in § 11.

Why couldn't the town use § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) here?

That paragraph lets a town supersede Town Law provisions on certain subjects. UJCA § 2021 is in the Uniform Justice Court Act, not the Town Law. The supersession power does not extend to the UJCA.

What about § 11(1)(e)?

MHRL § 11(1)(e) is an independent bar. It forbids local laws that supersede a state statute applying to or affecting the courts. Even if a town tried to characterize the fine-distribution rule as something other than supersession, § 11(1)(e) would still block it because the rule operates on a court's distribution of money.

Background and statutory framework

UJCA § 2021(2) makes fines imposed for the violation of a village local law, ordinance, or regulation the property of the village, whether or not the village has established the office of village justice. That allocation came from L 1991 ch 460, which was submitted at the request of the State Comptroller to clarify and confirm existing fine-distribution practices among town and village justice courts under the State Finance Law, Town Law, Village Law, and UJCA.

MHRL § 10 grants local lawmaking power subject to consistency with general state laws, and § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) gives towns a narrow supersession power over enumerated Town Law subjects. § 11(1)(e) bars local laws that supersede state statutes applying to or affecting the courts.

Citations

• Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (general local lawmaking; consistency with state law).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) (town supersession power over Town Law).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1)(e) (no supersession of state statutes affecting courts).
• Uniform Justice Court Act § 2021 (fine distribution among town and village justice courts).
• L 1991 ch 460 (Comptroller-sponsored amendment confirming fine-distribution practice).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_97-34_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW §§ 10(1)(ii)(d)(3), 11(1)(e); UNIFORM
JUSTICE COURT ACT § 2021; L 1991 CH 460.
A town is not authorized to amend or supersede a provision
of the Uniform Justice Court Act providing for distribution of
fines collected by the town justice court.
July 30, 1997
Mahlon R. Perkins, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Dryden
P.O. Box 27
Dryden, New York 13053

Informal Opinion
No. 97-34

Dear Mr. Perkins:
You have asked whether a town may amend section 2021(1) of
the Uniform Justice Court Act to provide that where a town court
adjudicates violations of village laws, and the village does not
have its own justice court, a portion of every fine collected by
the town court on behalf of the village would become the property
of the town.
Under section 2021(2),
all fines imposed for the violation of a
village local law, ordinance or regulation,
unless otherwise provided by law, shall be
the property of such village, whether or not
the village has established the office of
village justice.
This provision was added by Chapter 460 of the Laws of 1991. The
legislation was submitted at the request of the State Comptroller
who indicated that it was intended to clarify and confirm
existing practices relating to the disposition of fines,
penalties and forfeitures which are received by town and village
justice courts under provisions of the State Finance Law, Town
Law, Village Law and Uniform Justice Court Act. Bill Jacket,
L 1991 Ch 460, July 17, 1991 Report to the Governor on
Legislation from the Counsel to Comptroller.
Your concern is that the town incurs additional expense when
its justice court adjudicates violations of village local laws.1
1

We note that the expenses of a town justice court are paid
by town taxpayers including taxpayers residing in a village in
the town.

2

Therefore, you inquire whether Municipal Home Rule Law
§ 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) authorizes the town to amend section 2021(1) of
the Uniform Justice Court Act to permit the town to retain a
portion of fines collected by the town justice court for
violations of village laws.
The Municipal Home Rule Law provision does not provide
authority for your proposal. It only authorizes the amendment or
supersession of provisions of the Town Law relating to subjects
falling within the scope of a town's home rule authority. The
supersession power may not, therefore, be utilized to amend the
above provision of the Uniform Justice Court Act.
In the absence of applicable supersession authority, local
laws are required to be consistent with general State laws.
Municipal Home Rule Law § 10. Also, local laws may not supersede
a State statute which applies to or affects the courts. Id.,
§ 11(1)(e).
We thus conclude that a town is not authorized to amend or
supersede a provision of the Uniform Justice Court Act providing
for distribution of fines collected by the town justice court.
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