Judges: SIOBHAN S. CRARY, Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 4/9/1998
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Informal Opinion No. 98-16 Morton H. Abramowitz, Esq. Assistant County Attorney County of Niagara Niagara County Courthouse Lockport, N Y 14094-2740
Dear Mr. Abramowitz:
You have asked whether the employment contract between the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency and its executive director contains provisions proscribed by General Municipal Law §
You have advised us that the contract in question provides that the executive director will receive an annual salary of $69,000. The contract also states that the executive director will receive an additional salary of 1.5% of the agency fees collected for bond projects by the IDA between October 1, 1994 and October 13, 1997. This additional salary is to be paid quarterly, rather than at a bond closing when other transaction fees are paid. You state that the contract further provides that, "in the event the additional payment was held unenforceable or in conflict with State Legislation, a minimum additional payment of $3,000 per year would be paid to the Executive Director as additional compensation in place of the percentage payment".
We conclude that the first contract provision violates the terms of the General Municipal Law. It is clear that a provision for an additional salary payment consisting of a percentage of the agency fees collected for bond projects is compensation that is "contingent on the granting of financial assistance" by the IDA. The alternative "additional payment" to replace the percentage payment that is referred to as a "minimum" of $3,000 per year also appears to be a statutory violation. If under the terms of the contract or in the implementation of the provision the minimum additional payment of $3,000 per year would be made only when the IDA collected agency fees for bond projects and then determined not to use the percentage payment method, the minimum additional payment also would be "contingent on the granting of financial assistance" and, therefore, would not be permissible under the statute. Presumably, if it was unrelated to "financial assistance" to clients of the IDA, it would be a fixed amount that is part of the base salary of the executive director.
We conclude that the provisions of the Niagara County IDA's contract with its executive director, which state that the director is to receive an additional salary equal to 1.5% of the agency fees collected on IDA projects, violate General Municipal Law §
You also have asked whether the IDA should be instructed to recover some or all of the payments made to the executive director under the provisions discussed above. Contract provisions that are contrary to statutory requirements intended to protect the public and prevent fraud are void and unenforceable. See, Benjamin v. Koeppel,
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office.
Very truly yours,
SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General