Politics & Government
Judge Upholds Clarkstown Term Limits
The town's term limit law does not constitute "a continuing harm," the judge ruled.
NEW CITY, NY — A New York State Supreme Court judge ruled Wednesday that Clarkstown's term limits law, put in place in 2015, is valid.
The law was challenged in court by Town Supervisor George Hoehmann, Councilman Donald Franchino, and resident Tom Foley, after the Town Council set but canceled a vote on modifying the term limits law in November, The Journal News reported.
Unless an appeal is made and won, the ruling means neither Hoehmann (who voted for term limits in 2014) nor Councilmenber Frank Borelli can seek re-election.
Find out what's happening in New Cityfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The law sets a limit of eight consecutive years in office.
The town and town Council were the named defendants. Borelli and Councilman Patrick Carroll, who support the term limits law, hired their own attorney to file briefs as intervenors.
Find out what's happening in New Cityfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
"Today was a good day," Carroll wrote on Facebook. "I want to take a moment and thank our attorney Daniel Szalkiewicz who successfully defended our position and prevailed against George Hoehmann and Don Franchino’s illegal attempt to overturn term limits. Judge Puerto’s decision granting summary judgment to myself and Councilman Borelli upheld the rule of the law and rejected Hoehmann and Franchino’s cynical, shameful, and self-serving power play. Term limits ARE in place in Clarkstown. George Hoehmann CANNOT run for Town Supervisor. A new day is upon us - and I hope to be part the positive change moving forward in Clarkstown."
Judge Amy Puerto rejected the arguments that the law was invalid because it hadn't been put to a referendum and because it required a super-majority for repeal. She ruled that because the plaintiffs were challenging not the substance but the procedure, the 4-month statute of limitations for challenging a local law applied — and that expired eight years ago, she pointed out in her decision.
Hoehmann and Franchino argued that they hadn't sued before December since they were only harmed because they wanted to seek re-election. The law does not constitute "a continuing harm," the judge said.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.