
    Uniformed Firefighters Association et al., Respondents, and Edward Ostrowski, as President of the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association, et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Samuel De Milia, as President of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Inc., and All Other Police Officers of the City of New York Similarly Situated, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.
    Argued March 20, 1980;
    decided April 29, 1980
    
      POINTS OF COUNSEL
    
      Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (John C. Brennan, James G. Greilsheimer and Joseph F. Bruno of counsel), for appellants in the above-entitled action.
    I. Sections 3 and 30 of the Public Officers Law are special laws which, under the home rule provisions of the Constitution, can be superseded by an inconsistent local law. (Matter of Holland v Bankson, 290 NY 267; Baldwin v City of Buffalo, 6 NY2d 168; Matter of Osborn v Cohen, 272 NY 55; Matter of Kuhn v Curran, 294 NY 207; Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Matter of Carey v Morton, 297 NY 361; Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467; Robinson v County of Broome, 195 Misc 24, 276 App Div 69, 301 NY 524; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v County of Nassau, 18 NY2d 30; Matter of 241 East 22nd St. Corp. v City Rent Agency, 33 NY2d 134.) II. Since Local Law No. 20 does not mandate removal without notice and hearing, it does not violate section 75 of the Civil Service Law; nor does it impermissibly deprive plaintiffs of pension rights. (Mandelkern v City of Buffalo, 92 Misc 2d 425, 64 AD2d 279; Matter of Coates, 9 NY2d 242; Matter of Bell v Waterfront Comm. of N. Y. Harbor, 20 NY2d 54.) III. Local Law No. 20 does not violate the concept of making civil service appointments on the basis of merit and fitness. (Hesse v Rath, 224 App Div 344, 249 NY 436; Matter of Maye v Lindsay, 69 Misc 2d. 276, 41 AD2d 127, 33 NY2d 552, 414 US 1069.)
    
      Kenneth E. Gordon, Murray A. Gordon, Henry T. Berger and Edward M. Edenbaum for respondents.
    I. The courts below correctly held that Local Law No. 20 is inconsistent with applicable Public Officers Law residency provisions and is, therefore, invalid. (Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v City of New York, 43 Misc 2d 816, 22 AD2d 762, 765, 15 NY2d 604; City of Corning v Corning Police Dept. of Corning City Unit of Steuben County Ch., Civ. Serv. Employees Assn., 81 Misc 2d 294, 49 AD2d 689; City of Utica v Mercon, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 680; People v Abelove, 54 Misc 2d 306; Matter of Obergfell, 239 NY 48; Mandelkern v City of Buffalo, 64 AD2d 279; Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467; Matter of Board of Educ. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 535; Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490; Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources of City of N. Y., 46 NY2d 358; Matter of 241 East 22nd St. Corp. v City Rent Agency, 33 NY2d 134.) II. Local Law No. 20 violates the constitutional requirement of section 6 of article V that appointments in civil service shall be made according to merit and fitness. (Matter of Maye v Lindsay, 33 NY2d 552, 414 US 1069.) III. Local Law No. 20 violates the mandated notice, hearing, cause and range of penalties required by section 75 of the Civil Service Law. (Matter of Hecht v Monaghan, 307 NY 461; Mandelkern v City of Buffalo, 64 AD2d 279.) IV. Local Law No. 20 impairs constitutionally guaranteed pension rights. (Sgaglione v Levitt, 37 NY2d 507; Kranker v Levitt, 30 NY2d 574; Birnbaum v New York State Teachers Retirement System, 5 NY2d 1; Edwards v Codd, 59 AD2d 148; Sroka v Municipal Civ. Serv. Comm. of City of Buffalo, 57 AD2d 1064; Matter of Pauley v Noeppel, 1 Misc 2d 928; Matter of Rapp v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 42 NY2d 1.) V. Local Law No. 20 is unconstitutional. (Hall v Wisconsin, 103 US 5; Fisk v Jefferson Police Jury, 116 US 131; Robertson v Miller, 276 US 174; Indiana ex rel. Anderson v Brand, 303 US 95; Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v Woodward, 4 Wheat [17 US] 518; Matter of Fink v Finegan, 270 NY 356; Matter of Wittekind v Kern, 170 Misc 939, 256 App Div 918, 281 NY 701; Matter of Gilburt v Kroll, 17 Misc 2d 409, 1 AD2d 819, 2 NY2d 896; Matter of Poss v Kern, 263 App Div 320; Matter of Dowling v Brennan, 284 App Div 563.)
    
      Charles G. Moerdler, Burton N. Lipshie and Curtis C. 
      
      Mechling for intervenors-respondents.
    I. The courts below correctly held Local Law No. 20 invalid as to the sanitation-men by reason of its contravention of sections 3 (subd 2-a) and 30 (subd 4-a) of the Public Officers Law. (Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v City of New York, 43 Misc 2d 816, 22 AD2d 762, 15 NY2d 604; City of Corning v Corning Police Dept. of Corning City Unit of Steuben County Ch., Civ. Serv. Employees Assn., 81 Misc 2d 294, 49 AD2d 689; City of Utica v Mercon, Inc., 71 Misc 2d 680; Matter of Schneider v Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420; Matter of Sherrill v O'Brien, 188 NY 185; Arkell v Commerce Ins. Co., 69 NY 191; Matter of Hayes, 263 NY 219, 264 NY 459; Matter of Yanoff v Commissioner of Educ. of State of N. Y., 64 AD2d 763; Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources of City of N. Y., 46 NY2d 358; Wambat Realty Corp. v State of New York, 41 NY2d 490; City of New York v State of New York, 31 NY2d 804; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v County of Nassau, 18 NY2d 30, 395 US 453.) II. The courts below correctly held Local Law No. 20 invalid by reason of its violation of section 75 of the Civil Service Law. (Matter of Giliforte v City of Buffalo, 54 AD2d 170; Matter of Coates, 9 NY2d 242; Matter of Bell v Waterfront Comm. of N. Y. Harbor, 20 NY2d 54.) III. The courts below correctly held Local Law No. 20 invalid by reason of its violation of section 6 of article V of the New York State Constitution. (Matter of Maye v Lindsay, 33 NY2d 552, 414 US 1069; Wardwell v Board of Educ., 529 F2d 625.) IV. The courts below correctly held Local Law No. 20 invalid by reason of its violation of section 7 of article V of the New York State Constitution. (Sgaglione v Levitt, 37 NY2d 507; Kleinfeldt v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 36 NY2d 95; Birnbaum v New York State Teachers Retirement System, 5 NY2d 1; Edwards v Codd, 59 AD2d 148.) V. Local Law No. 20 is invalid as to the sanitationmen by reason of its violation of rights afforded by the United States and New York State Constitutions, particularly the right to equal protection of the laws. (Krzewinski v Kugler, 338 F Supp 492; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618; Matter of Schulman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 234.)
    
      Michael J. McNulty for appellants in the above-entitled proceeding.
    I. Sections 3 (subd 2) and 30 (subd 4) of the Public Officers Law may not be superseded by inconsistent local law. (Matter of De Hond v Nyquist, 65 Misc 2d 526; Matter of Hesselgrave v King, 45 Misc 2d 256; Matter of Maurer v 
      
      Gross, 45 Misc 2d 13; Matter of Mayor of N. Y. [Elm St], 246 NY 72; Stapleton v Pinckney, 293 NY 330; Matter of Henneberger, 155 NY 420; Farrington v Pinckney, 1 NY2d 74; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v County of Nassau, 18 NY2d 30; Bugeja v City of New York, 17 NY2d 606; People v Abraham, 44 AD2d 721; People v Scher, 76 Misc 2d 71.) II. Local Law No. 20 violates the hearing and range of penalties provisions of section 75 of the Civil Service Law. (Mandelkern v City of Buffalo, 92 Misc 2d 425.) III. Local Law No. 20 violates the constitutional requirement that appointments to the civil service of the city shall be made according to merit and fitness. (Matter of Maye v Lindsay, 33 NY2d 552, 414 US 1069.) IV. The enactment of Local Law No. 20 is an unconstitutional impairment of pension rights of respondent. (Matter of Rapp v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, 42 NY2d 1.) V. Local Law No. 20 unilaterally and unconstitutionally impairs contract obligations and rights. (Hall v Wisconsin, 103 US 5; Indiana ex rel. Anderson v Brand, 303 US 95; Matter of Fink v Finegan, 270 NY 356; Matter of Gilburt v Kroll, 17 Misc 2d 409, 1 AD2d 819; Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618.)
    
      Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Daniel M. Cohen and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), in his statutory capacity under section 71 of the Executive Law and CPLR 1012 (subd [b]). Sections 3 and 30 of the Public Officers Law involve matters of State concern and are general, not special laws.
    Despite the exceptions contained in their provisions, both sections are of State-wide application and are not restricted in their terms to New York City. Accordingly, neither section violates the provisions of sections 2 or 3 of article IX of the New York State Constitution or the provisions of the 1963 home rule amendment (art IX, § 11). (Matter of Peters v New York City Housing Auth., 307 NY 519; People v Carcel, 3 NY2d 327; Comiskey v Arlen, 43 NY2d 696; Matter of Van Berkel v Power, 16 NY2d 37; Wiggins v Town of Somers, 4 NY2d 215; Matter of De Hond v Nyquist, 65 Misc 2d 526; Matter of Taylor v Sise, 33 NY2d 357; McGowan v Maryland, 366 US 420; Williamson v Lee Opt. Co., 348 US 483, 349 US 925; Morey v Doud, 354 US 457.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

New York City may not, through Local Law No. 20 of the Local Laws of 1978 (Administrative Code of City of New York, §§ B49-4.0, B49-4.1, B49-4.2), make a residency requirement for municipal officers and employees applicable to members of its police, fire, correction and sanitation departments. As is conceded, the law as applicable to these persons is inconsistent with exemptions from municipal residency requirements contained in section 3 (subds 2, 2-a, 9) and section 30 (subds 4, 4-a, 5) of the Public Officers Law. Contrary to the city’s contention, these sections may not be superseded by local law under municipal home rule as they do not relate "to the property, affairs or government” of the city by "special law” (NY Const, art IX, § 2).

Home rule simply is not implicated when the Legislature acts in areas "other than the property, affairs or government of a local government” (NY Const, art IX, § 3, subd [a], par [3]). Under the limited meaning of this phrase, legislation of State import does not impinge upon municipal home rule simply because it touches matters that concern the affairs or property of the city (Adler v Deegan, 251 NY 467 [conditions of multiple dwellings]; see Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources of City of N. Y., 46 NY2d 358 [maintenance of cultural institutions]). While the structure and control of the municipal service departments in issue here may be considered of local concern within the meaning of municipal home rule (see Matter of Osborn v Cohen, 272 NY 55 [duties and number of firemen, hours of work]), the residence of their members, unrelated to job performance or departmental organization, is a matter of State-wide concern not subject to municipal home rule. The city offers nothing to show the insubstantiality of the State’s interest in affording residential mobility to members of the civil service.

Nor are the provisions of the statute infirm because, although cast in general terms, they may affect less than all cities. A statute dealing with matters of State concern is no less general because it classifies the cities affected on the basis of population or some other condition and extends its benefits only to one or a few cities (see Hotel Dorset Co. v Trust for Cultural Resources of City of N. Y., supra; Matter of McAneny v Board of Estimate & Apportionment of City of N. Y, 232 NY 377). What is required is that the classification be defined by conditions common to the class and related to the subject of the statute (cf. Farrington v Pinckney, 1 NY2d 74, 80-81; Stapleton v Pinckney, 293 NY 330, 335). And, it has long been recognized that New York City and other large municipal centers might reasonably receive different treatment (see Matter of 241 East 22nd St. Corp. v City Rent Agency, 33 NY2d 134; Matter of McAneny v Board of Estimate & Apportionment of City of N. Y., 232 NY 377, supra). Thus, to the extent that Local Law No. 20 is inconsistent with the Public Officers Law, it cannot stand.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Order affirmed.  