Does a New York district attorney have to prosecute every violation of a village's local laws, or can the DA delegate that work to village officials, especially when there's a conflict of interest?

Plain-English summary

The Village of Watkins Glen had a disagreement with the Schuyler County District Attorney. The village attorney took the position that County Law § 700 makes it the DA's mandatory duty to conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable in the county, including violations of village local laws. The village attorney argued that when the DA has a conflict of interest, the proper response is the appointment of a special district attorney under § 701, not delegation to the village attorney or village officials. The DA had previously offered to authorize the village to handle a case where the DA had a conflict.

The AG sided with the DA on the framework.

Under People v Van Sickle, 13 NY2d 61 (1963), and People v Czajka, 11 NY2d 253 (1962), the district attorney's office is not required to prosecute every offense in the county. The DA exercises broad prosecutorial discretion and can fulfill the statutory responsibilities of County Law § 700 by making arrangements that ensure the DA knows about and consents to local prosecutions. Under those arrangements, petty offenses and local-law violations can be prosecuted by municipal attorneys, police officers, code enforcement officers, and other local officials, with the DA's consent.

The AG had reached the same conclusion in Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 96-31. Resource constraints can require the DA to focus on serious offenses, leaving local-law enforcement to local officials. That is a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not an abandonment of statutory duty.

Village Law § 20-2006(2) provides the affirmative authority on the village side. The board of trustees may give the village attorney responsibility to prosecute violations of village local laws and regulations, and may provide reasonable compensation for that service. So the chain of authority looks like this: the DA's office controls prosecution generally; the DA consents to local prosecutions either by general arrangement or case by case; the village can authorize its attorney (or other officials) to prosecute, with compensation.

The Watkins Glen DA's specific posture (continuing to prosecute most matters but declining one case due to conflict) was consistent with the cases and prior AG opinion. Where there is a particular conflict, the DA may step back; the village can take up the case through its attorney or other officials. A § 701 special district attorney is one mechanism but not the only one, and the DA's discretion includes the choice of how to manage the situation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is the difference between County Law § 700 and § 701?

§ 700 is the DA's general prosecutorial mandate ("conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county"). § 701 is the special district attorney provision, which addresses the specific situation where the DA cannot serve due to disqualification, sickness, absence, or conflict. The two are complementary: § 700 establishes the duty; § 701 provides a backup mechanism when the DA cannot personally act.

Is the DA's duty under § 700 absolute?

No. People v Van Sickle and People v Czajka establish that § 700 leaves the DA with wide discretion in how to fulfill the responsibility. The DA satisfies § 700 by structuring the prosecution function: handling serious offenses directly, supervising local prosecutions through general or specific consent arrangements, and intervening where the DA's direct involvement is needed.

Why can village attorneys prosecute violations?

Two reasons combine. First, the case law treats the DA's discretion as broad enough to authorize delegation of petty offenses, with the DA's knowledge and consent. Second, Village Law § 20-2006(2) is express affirmative authority for the village board to give the village attorney prosecution responsibility. The village attorney is not freelancing; the village has authorized the role and the DA has consented.

Does the village have to compensate the village attorney for prosecution work?

Village Law § 20-2006(2) provides that the board "may provide reasonable compensation" for the service. The compensation is at the board's discretion, but it must be reasonable. Many villages handle prosecution as part of a comprehensive village attorney engagement; others contract on a per-matter basis. The compensation structure is for the board to decide.

When does a § 701 special district attorney make sense versus village attorney prosecution?

§ 701 special district attorneys are appointed by a justice of the court for specific cases when the DA cannot act. They prosecute on behalf of the people of the state. Village attorney prosecution under § 20-2006(2) is for ongoing handling of village local law violations as a general matter. § 701 is the right tool for one-off conflict situations involving serious matters; village attorney prosecution is the right tool for routine local law enforcement.

Can the DA reclaim a case after delegating it?

Yes. The DA's discretion includes the power to take a case back at any time. Delegation is for convenience and resource allocation; it does not transfer ultimate authority. If a case becomes complex, gets media attention, or involves issues beyond the village's capacity, the DA can resume direct prosecution.

Background and statutory framework

County Law § 700 imposes on the DA the duty to conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the county's courts. § 701 provides for the appointment of a special district attorney by the court when the DA cannot serve.

Village Law § 20-2006(2) authorizes the village board to grant the village attorney responsibility to prosecute violations of village local laws and regulations and to compensate the attorney for that work.

The leading cases on prosecutorial discretion under § 700 are People v Van Sickle, 13 NY2d 61 (1963), and People v Czajka, 11 NY2d 253 (1962). The Court of Appeals held that the DA satisfies § 700 by arranging for local prosecutions with the DA's knowledge and consent; the statutory duty does not require personal handling of every matter in the county.

The AG synthesized this framework in Op Atty Gen (Inf) Nos. 96-31 and 86-61, both treating delegation to municipal attorneys as a legitimate way for the DA to manage prosecutorial workload.

Citations

• County Law § 700 (DA's general prosecutorial duty).
• County Law § 701 (special district attorney appointment).
• Village Law § 20-2006(2) (village board may grant village attorney prosecution authority with reasonable compensation).
• People v Van Sickle, 13 NY2d 61 (1963) (DA's wide prosecutorial discretion; arrangement-based fulfillment of § 700).
• People v Czajka, 11 NY2d 253 (1962) (same).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 96-31 (DA not required to prosecute every village local law violation; delegation authority).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 86-61 (village attorney prosecution authority under Village Law).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_97-52_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

COUNTY LAW §§ 700, 701; VILLAGE LAW § 20-2006(2).
The district attorney has wide discretion as to whether to
prosecute violations of village local laws. He may perform that
prosecutorial function or, in his discretion, delegate that
responsibility to the municipal attorney or to other village
officials.

November 19, 1997
Connie Fern Miller, Esq.
Village Attorney
Village of Watkins Glen
601 North Decatur Street
Watkins Glen, NY 14891

Informal Opinion
No. 97-52

Dear Ms. Miller:
You have asked whether a district attorney, citing a
conflict of interests, may refuse to prosecute violations of a
village's local law, thereby forcing the village either to hire
outside counsel or have its own enforcement officer prosecute the
case.
You have attached correspondence which further defines the
issue. In your April 25, 1997 letter to the district attorney,
you cite section 700 of the County Law, which provides that the
district attorney has the duty to conduct all prosecutions for
crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county.
Based on this provision you conclude that the prosecution of a
violation of a village local law is a required duty of the office
of district attorney. You state that as village attorney you
have no authority to prosecute any case and suggest that if the
district attorney has a conflict of interests the proper
procedure is appointment of a special district attorney, as
prescribed by County Law § 701.
The district attorney, in an April 14, 1997 letter to the
mayor of the village, explains that as a courtesy his office has
prosecuted violations of village local laws but for various
reasons, including a conflict of interests, he may not be able to
perform this service. In the April 14 letter the district
attorney explains that in the case at hand his office has a
conflict of interests and, therefore, he is permitting village
officials to prosecute this matter. The district attorney
concludes his letter by indicating his willingness to continue
prosecuting violations of local laws on behalf of the village in
the future, where there is no conflict.

2
In an April 29, 1997 letter to you, the district attorney
cites an opinion of this office and decisions of the Court of
Appeals for the proposition that section 700 of the County Law
has been construed to allow the district attorney to delegate
authority to prosecute violations of local laws to municipal
attorneys and other local officials.
In a recently issued informal opinion (No. 96-31) the issue
was whether the district attorney is required to prosecute
violations of village local laws and regulations. As you will
see, it has been long established that the district attorney's
office need not prosecute every offense committed within the
county. Id., citing, People v Van Sickle, 13 NY2d 61 (1963);
People v Czajka, 11 NY2d 253 (1962). The district attorney can
fulfill his prosecutorial responsibilities by making arrangements
whereby he knows of all prosecutions in the county and consents
to appearances on his behalf. Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 96-31.
Under these arrangements, petty crimes and offenses may be
prosecuted by local officers, municipal attorneys, police
officers and other local enforcement officials. Id.
We note that under section 20-2006(2) of the Village Law the
board of trustees of a village may grant to a village's attorney
responsibility to prosecute violations of village local laws and
regulations and may provide reasonable compensation for this
service. See, Op Atty Gen (Inf) Nos. 96-31, 86-61. In our
recent opinion, we reasoned that prosecutions by local officials
and other local enforcement officers of violations of local
regulations may be necessitated by the limited resources of the
district attorney's office. Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 96-31. We
noted that the district attorney has wide discretion in the
prosecution of offenses and may determine that effective use of
his office's resources does not permit prosecution of local
regulations by his office's personnel. Id.
The resources of the district attorney's
office may be fully required in the
investigation and prosecution of serious
offenses occurring within the county. Under
these circumstances, it may be necessary to
rely upon local officials, such as municipal
attorneys, to prosecute violations of local
regulations of a particular municipality.
Id.
We concluded in our 1996 opinion that the district attorney is
not required to prosecute violations of village local laws and

3
regulations. The district attorney may determine, in
consideration of the available resources of his office, that it
is necessary to concentrate on prosecution of serious crimes
occurring within the county.
Therefore, we believe that the view of the district attorney
of your county is consistent with our prior opinions and
decisions of the Court of Appeals. The district attorney has
indicated his willingness to continue prosecuting violations of
village local laws on behalf of the village in that his assistant
district attorneys are conveniently present in the village court.
The district attorney's judgment that in a particular case his
office has a conflict of interests and is not able to prosecute
on behalf of the village is consistent with established case law
recognizing his broad prosecutorial discretion. In this
situation, the district attorney has agreed to authorize
officials of the village to prosecute on his behalf, a decision
which clearly is authorized under the above-cited decisions of
the Court of Appeals and the 1996 opinion of the Attorney
General.
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,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
In Charge of Opinions