## Facts

- Suffolk County enacted Local Law No. 27-1993, later approved by referendum and incorporated into the Suffolk County Charter.
- The charter provision stated that “[n]o person shall serve as District Attorney for more than 12 consecutive years.”
- Thomas J. Spota III served as Suffolk County District Attorney after being elected in 2001 and then elected to successive four-year terms, reaching 12 consecutive years by the end of December 2013.
- In 2013, Spota was designated as a candidate for another term as district attorney in upcoming primary elections, including nominations sought across multiple parties.
- Maureen S. Hoerger and other registered voters, along with Raymond G. Perini (a candidate in the Republican primary for district attorney), filed objections with the Suffolk County Board of Elections to Spota’s designating petitions.
- The challengers then commenced an Election Law special proceeding seeking to invalidate Spota’s designating petitions on the ground that the county charter’s 12-year limit made him ineligible to run.
- The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, leaving the designating petitions intact.
- The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the State—rather than the County—has authority to set restrictions on the number of consecutive years a person may serve as district attorney; two justices dissented on the ground that the County could legislate because the State had not preempted the subject.
- The challengers appealed as of right to the New York Court of Appeals based on the Appellate Division dissent on a question of law.

## Issues

1. Whether Suffolk County, through its charter and local legislative power, may impose a 12-consecutive-year limit on service as district attorney.
2. If the county lacks that power, whether the term-limit provision can be used to declare Spota ineligible and invalidate his designating petitions.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order upholding Spota’s designating petitions.
- The court concluded Suffolk County is without power to regulate the number of terms the district attorney may serve.
- Because the county term-limit provision was not a valid basis to restrict eligibility for the office of district attorney, Spota remained eligible to run, and the designating petitions were valid.

## Legal Principles

- A county’s home-rule authority does not include power to change core incidents of a state-created office, including eligibility to serve and limits on tenure, unless the State has granted that authority.
- The office of district attorney, though elected within a county, carries state-law responsibilities and is governed by statewide constitutional and statutory rules in ways that restrict local control over qualifications and tenure.
- Local enactments that add qualifications for a state-governed office beyond those provided by state law exceed local legislative competence and cannot be enforced to bar a candidacy.
- When the State has reserved to itself the structure and tenure rules for an office, a county may not use charter provisions to control who may appear on the ballot for that office by imposing additional limits.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that Suffolk County lacked authority to impose a 12-consecutive-year term limit on the office of district attorney through its charter. As a result, the charter’s term-limit provision could not be applied to disqualify incumbent District Attorney Thomas J. Spota III from seeking another term, and the court affirmed the rulings that his designating petitions were valid.


Hoerger v. Spota, 997 N.E.2d 1229 (N.Y. 2013)