RICKETTS v. Council of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. (2001)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered May 12, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, partly granted and partly denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and partly granted and partly denied the cross motion for partial summary judgment of defendant Council of the City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The motion court properly determined that plaintiffs had failed to overcome or raise any triable issue as to the presumption of constitutional validity attending Local Law 115 (Administrative Code of the City of N.Y. § 19-501 et seq.), which prohibits commuter vans from dropping off and picking up passengers on bus routes and requires all commuter van passenger service to be performed on a prearranged basis, since the challenged Local Law provisions bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, i.e., the regulation of transportation modalities and the prevention of conditions dangerous to the public welfare (see, Lighthouse Shores, Inc. v. Town of Islip, 41 N.Y.2d 7, 11-12, 390 N.Y.S.2d 827, 359 N.E.2d 337;  see also, Town of N. Hempstead v. Exxon Corp., 53 N.Y.2d 747, 439 N.Y.S.2d 342, 421 N.E.2d 834).   The court also properly determined that the legislation's “grandfather” provision was not inconsistent with the State Enabling Act (Transportation Law § 80[5][a][1][iii] ).

 The call-up provision of Local Law 115 (Admin. Code § 19-504.2 [f]), however, which grants the City Council the authority to veto a final determination of a City agency, was properly invalidated since it violates the State Enabling Act, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the City Charter (see, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 468 N.Y.S.2d 596, 456 N.E.2d 487;  Mayor of the City of New York v. Council of the City of New York, 235 A.D.2d 230, 651 N.Y.S.2d 531, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 815, 659 N.Y.S.2d 856, 681 N.E.2d 1303).   Nonetheless, as the motion court found, the invalid provision may be severed without compromising the core intent of the overall legislation (cf., Mayor of the City of New York v. Council of the City of New York, supra).

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.