Discretion in Allocating Assessment Stabilization Reserve Funds: Town of Riverhead v. County of Suffolk

Introduction

In Matter of Town of Riverhead v. County of Suffolk, 2025 NYSlipOp 02209 (2nd Dept. Apr. 16, 2025), the Town of Riverhead and certain Town Board members (the “petitioners”) challenged the County of Suffolk’s refusal to draw from its Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund (“ASRF”) to subsidize sewer‐district rate increases for 2016 and 2017. The petitioners sought mandamus relief under CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment that Suffolk County Charter former § C12-2(D) mandated payment of $537,140 (2016) and $1,466,712 (2017) to the Riverhead Sewer District. The County moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f), arguing that ASRF appropriations are discretionary and not subject to mandamus. The Appellate Division modified and affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that the allocation of ASRF funds is a discretionary government function beyond mandamus relief.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court (Suffolk County) had dismissed all causes of action.
• On appeal, the Second Department held that:
• The petition for mandamus was properly dismissed because the County’s ASRF appropriations involve discretion, not a ministerial duty.
• The petitioners’ second cause of action (for declaratory relief) failed as a matter of law: former Charter § C12-2(D) did not obligate the County to stabilize sewer rates below a 3% increase threshold.
• Other causes of action—waste, equal protection, accounting—also lacked factual or legal basis and were correctly dismissed under CPLR 3211(a).
• The order was modified to recast the dismissal of the second cause of action as a declaratory‐judgment grant in the County’s favor, and otherwise affirmed with costs to the County.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Mandamus Standard
  • Matter of Brusco v. Braun, 84 NY2d 674 (1994): Mandamus compels only ministerial, nondiscretionary duties.
  • New York Civil Liberties Union v. State of New York, 4 NY3d 175 (2005): Emphasizes mandamus to enforce “clear legal right.”
  • North Fork Management & Maintenance, LLC v. NYS Dept. of Labor, 98 AD3d 514 (2nd Dept. 2012): Reiterates discretionary acts cannot be compelled by mandamus.
• Statutory Interpretation
  • Town of Huntington v. County of Suffolk, 79 AD3d 207 (2nd Dept. 2010): Courts must start with plain language to discern legislative intent.
  • Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School Dist., 91 NY2d 577 (1998): Plain meaning controls statutory interpretation when intent is clear.
  • Matter of Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Orgs. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 209 AD3d 854 (2nd Dept. 2022): Pure statutory reading is for the court, regardless of administrative construction.
• Declaratory Judgment
  • St. Lawrence University v. Trustees of Theological School of St. Lawrence Univ., 20 NY2d 317 (1967): Grounds for declaratory relief where no factual issues remain and legal right is settled.
  • Matter of 22-50 Jackson Ave. Assoc., L.P. v. County of Suffolk, 216 AD3d 943 (2nd Dept. 2023): Dismissal under CPLR 3211(a) can be deemed a grant of declaratory judgment if appropriate.

Legal Reasoning

The court undertook a two‐step analysis:

1. Mandamus Availability: Under CPLR 7804(f), mandamus lies only for “ministerial duties.” Because Tax Law § 1210-A(b)(iii) and Suffolk County Charter § C12-2(D) vest the County Executive and Legislature with authority to determine “amount or amounts…necessary,” the decision to allocate ASRF funds is discretionary. Discretion precludes mandamus.
2. Declaratory Relief: The petitioners’ request for declaration that Charter § C12-2(D) mandates rate stabilization payments founders on the statute’s plain language:
   • No absolute payment obligation exists—only legislative approval of “necessary” amounts.
   • Stabilization cannot reduce a sewer‐rate increase below 3% per year.
   With no factual dispute, CPLR 3211(a) dismissal was properly treated as declaratory judgment for the County.

Impact

This decision clarifies and will guide future challenges to local government fiscal decisions:

• Reaffirms that mandamus cannot compel discretionary budgetary or policy choices.
• Limits declaratory relief to clear statutory mandates, avoiding judicial rewriting of local fiscal schemes.
• Encourages local governments to draft clear standards if they wish to create enforceable funding rights.
• Serves as a reference point for other New York counties implementing Tax Law § 1210-A funding programs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: A court order forcing a government official to perform a clear, non-discretionary duty.
• Ministerial vs. Discretionary Acts:
  • Ministerial: Required by law, applied under fixed rules (e.g., issuing licenses when prerequisites are met).
  • Discretionary: Involves judgment, policy choices (e.g., allocating reserve funds among competing needs).
• Assessment Stabilization Reserve Fund (ASRF): A special fund under NY Tax Law § 1210-A for county sewer‐district tax mitigation, managed at the discretion of county executives and legislatures.
• CPLR 3211(a): Authorizes dismissal of pleadings for failure to state a cause of action on their face.
• CPLR 7804(f): Authorizes dismissal of article 78 petitions when the relief sought is unavailable (e.g., mandamus for discretionary acts).

Conclusion

Town of Riverhead v. County of Suffolk confirms that New York counties possess broad discretion in distributing ASRF monies under Tax Law § 1210-A and local charters. The ruling narrows the availability of mandamus to truly ministerial duties and underscores the importance of clear statutory language when creating enforceable rights to public funds. Going forward, municipalities and taxpayers alike will look to this precedent when framing challenges to local‐government fiscal decisions and reserve‐fund allocations.