How many Nassau Health Care Corporation board members are needed for a quorum and to approve action when there are vacancies on the board?

Plain-English summary

Nassau Health Care Corporation, a 15-member public benefit corporation that runs healthcare facilities in Nassau County, faced a question that came up because vacancies were piling up on its board: how many directors did it actually take to hold a meeting and pass something?

Two statutes pointed in different directions. The corporation's own enabling statute, Public Authorities Law § 3402(2)(c), said 60% of "the voting directors then in office" formed a quorum, and "no action shall be taken by the board of directors except pursuant to the favorable vote of a majority of the board at a meeting at which a quorum is present." A more general provision, Public Authorities Law § 2826, set quorum and majority by reference to the "whole number" of seats on the board, regardless of vacancies, for any authority "heretofore or hereafter continued or created" by the Public Authorities Law.

The Assistant Solicitor General in Charge of Opinions concluded that the corporation's specific statute won. Section 3402(2)(c) controlled. The quorum was 60% of directors then in office, so it shrank as vacancies grew. The vote needed to approve an action was a majority of directors actually attending a quorate meeting, not a majority of the whole 15-member board.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

Q: What was the practical difference between the two statutes?
A: Worked example given in the opinion: with all 15 seats filled, § 3402 required 9 directors for a quorum and § 2826 required 8. With 5 vacancies and 10 directors remaining, § 3402 dropped the quorum to 6, while § 2826 still demanded 8. So § 2826 could create a situation where a board could not even seat a quorum, let alone act, while the more flexible § 3402 scaled with the body's actual size.

Q: Why did the AG read the specific statute as overriding the general one?
A: Two reasons. First, treating § 2826 as controlling would have rendered the quorum language in the corporation's enabling statute a nullity, a disfavored result under New York's canons of construction. Second, when a general earlier statute conflicts with a later specific one, the later specific one is treated as having impliedly repealed the earlier general provision as applied to that subject. The opinion cited Statutes §§ 231 and 397.

Q: Did the AG read the majority-vote requirement to mean a majority of the whole board, or a majority of those present?
A: Majority of those present at a quorate meeting. The opinion reasoned that if the legislature meant "majority of the whole board," it would have stopped after the words "favorable vote of a majority of the board," and would not have added "at a meeting at which a quorum is present." The added phrase tied the majority to the meeting, not to the full board roster.

Q: What happens to § 2826 under this reading?
A: It still applies, just not to authorities whose enabling acts contain their own quorum and majority rules. The opinion described § 2826 as a default that fills in when an authority's specific statute is silent on the question.

Q: How did the AG read the General Construction Law in this analysis?
A: General Construction Law § 41 sets default quorum and majority rules for public bodies, but General Construction Law § 110 makes those defaults yield when other provisions of law indicate a different intent. The opinion treated both § 2826 and § 3402 as "other provisions" that displaced the default, so it never reached § 41.

Background and statutory framework

Nassau Health Care Corporation was created by the Legislature in 1997 as a public benefit corporation under Public Authorities Law article 10-C to operate healthcare facilities in Nassau County. Public Authorities Law § 3401(2). It was governed by 15 voting directors, a majority appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of state and county officers, and the rest appointed by county officials. Id. § 3402(1)(b), (c).

Public Authorities Law § 2826, added in 1958, set a uniform quorum-and-majority rule for authorities created by that law: a majority of the "whole number" of board seats, ignoring vacancies. The corporation's 1997 enabling act took effect long after § 2826 and chose a different rule. Section 3402(2)(c) tied the quorum to "directors then in office" and tied the majority to the meeting at which a quorum was present.

The opinion noted that this kind of split, between a general rule for authorities and a specific rule for one authority, was not unusual in New York's public-authority law. Public Authorities Law § 1201(5), governing the New York City Transit Authority, took the same approach as § 3402: quorum from members then in office, action by majority of those at a quorate meeting.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Public Authorities Law § 2826 (general quorum/majority rule)
- Public Authorities Law § 3402 (Nassau Health Care Corporation board)
- General Construction Law §§ 41, 110

Cases:
- Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Dev. v. Roosevelt Island Oper. Corp., 291 A.D.2d 40 (1st Dep't 2001) (quorum varies with vacancies under "then in office" language)
- New York State Urban Devel. Corp. v. Vanderlex Merchandise Co., 98 Misc. 2d 264 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1979) (same)

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_2011-3_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Public Authorities Law Article 3, title 2, Article 9, Article 9 § 2826, Article 10-C,
3401(2), 3402, 3402(1)(b), 3402(1)(c), 3402(2)(c); General Construction Law 41, 110
The provisions of Public Authorities Law § 3402(2)(c) govern the number of Nassau
Health Care Corporation directors needed to convene a quorum and transact
business, and those numbers vary depending on the number of directors then in
office and the number of directors attending a meeting at which a quorum is
present.
February 4, 2011

Reginald Bullock
General Counsel
Nassau Health Care Corporation
2201 Hempstead Turnpike
East Meadow, New York 11554

Informal Opinion
No. 2011-3

Dear Mr. Bullock:
You have requested an opinion relating to the number of votes necessary for
the board of the Nassau Health Care Corporation ("Corporation") to transact
business. The Corporation is a public benefit corporation established under Public
Authorities Law article 10-C to provide health care services and health facilities
within Nassau County. Public Authorities Law § 3401(2). It is governed by a board
consisting of 15 members (called "voting directors" in the enabling statute), a
majority of whom are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of
specific state and county officers. Id. § 3402(1)(b), (c). The remaining members are
appointed by county officials. Id. § 3402(1)(b). You have explained that the board
currently has some vacancies and you anticipate more in the near future, and thus
you ask how many board members are necessary to approve matters that are voted
on. As explained below, we conclude that the number of members that must
approve action is governed by the Corporation's enabling legislation and varies
depending on the number of members currently in office and the number who are
present at a meeting.

Analysis

Two conflicting provisions of the Public Authorities Law must be considered
in responding to your question. First, within the provisions establishing the
Corporation, the Legislature provided that 60% "of the voting directors then in
office shall constitute a quorum." Public Authorities Law § 3402(2)(c). Under this
statute, the number needed for a quorum varies with vacancies on the board; that
number is determined by the number of directors "then in office." See Roosevelt
Islanders for Responsible Southtown Dev. v. Roosevelt Island Oper. Corp., 291
A.D.2d 40, 49-50 (1st Dep't 2001); New York State Urban Devel. Corp. v. Vanderlex
Merchandise Co., 98 Misc. 2d 264, 270-71 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1979). Section 3402
further provides that "[n]o action shall be taken by the board of directors except
pursuant to the favorable vote of a majority of the board at a meeting at which a
quorum is present." Public Authorities Law § 3402(2)(c).

Second, Public Authorities Law article 9 provides certain rules generally
applicable to authorities established under the Public Authorities Law. One of
those provisions is section 2826, which provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any other
provision" of the Public Authorities Law or any provision of any general, special, or
local law, "whenever the whole number of the board of any authority or commission
heretofore or hereafter continued or created" by the Public Authorities Law is three
or more persons, "a majority of the whole number," that is, the total number the
board would have without any vacancies or disqualified members, is needed to
constitute a quorum. Additionally, "not less than a majority of the whole number of
such board may perform and exercise" its powers. Id. § 2826. Under this statute,
added to the Public Authorities Law in 1958, the number of members needed for a
quorum and a majority does not change, even when vacancies exist on the board.

The Corporation's enabling legislation took effect in 1997, rendering it
subject to Public Authority Law § 2826's quorum and majority provisions unless
that section was repealed with respect to the Corporation by the Corporation's
enabling statute.

Section 2826's effectiveness was not expressly repealed by the Corporation's
enabling statute. The question of whether it was impliedly repealed by the
Corporation's legislation is more complicated. We believe, however, that the better
answer is that the general provisions of Public Authorities Law § 2826 were
repealed with respect to their application to the Corporation by the later-enacted
statute that established the Corporation, and thus that the special provisions of
section 3402 govern the number of directors who constitute a quorum and who must
approve action by the Corporation.

We begin with the broad language of section 2826, which provides that
notwithstanding any other provision of the Public Authorities Law or any other
general, special, or local law, whenever the board of an authority "heretofore or
hereafter continued or created" by the Public Authorities Law is composed of three
or more members, the numbers required for quorum and majority are determined
by the whole number of board members, without factoring in vacancies or
disqualified members. The Corporation was created after section 2826 was adopted,
and its board has 15 members, bringing it within the scope of the language of
section 2826.

The conclusion that the provisions of section 2826 govern would, however,
render the language of the Corporation's enabling legislation relating to quorum
and majority a nullity. This is of course a strongly disfavored result. See Statutes
§ 231, 1 McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y. at 388 (1971). Additionally, when a general
statutory provision conflicts with a later-enacted special statutory provision, the
later-enacted statute is deemed to have repealed the earlier general provision.
Statutes § 397, 1 McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y. at 577 (1971). The conflict
between the provisions of section 2826 and 3402 can be illustrated by the following
examples relating to the number of directors each statute would require for a
quorum: first, assuming no vacancies on the board, under section 3402, the special
law governing the Corporation, nine of the 15 directors constitute a quorum, while
under the general provisions of section 2826, eight directors are needed for a
quorum. Next, assuming five vacancies on the board and ten directors remaining,
under section 2826 eight directors are still needed for a quorum, but under section
3402 only six directors ("sixty percent of the voting directors then in office") must be
present. In light of this conflict, established principles of statutory construction
weigh in favor of concluding that the general provisions of section 2826 were
repealed with respect to the Corporation by the Legislature's enactment of specific
quorum requirements. We therefore are of the opinion that the language of the
Corporation's enabling legislation relating to quorum governs, rather than the
general provisions of section 2826, and thus that the number of directors who are
needed to comprise a quorum varies with the number of directors "then in office."

We next turn to the question of the number of board members that must
agree before an action is approved. As with its quorum provision, the portion of
Public Authorities Law § 3402(2)(c) relating to the necessary majority must be given
meaning so as not to be a nullity. Section 3402(2)(c) provides that "[n]o action shall
be taken by the board of directors except pursuant to the favorable vote of a
majority of the board at a meeting at which a quorum is present." You have
suggested that this could be interpreted to mean either a majority of the whole
board ("the board"), or, alternatively, a majority of the directors present at a
meeting as long as there is a quorum. For the following reasons, we favor the latter
interpretation.

First, if a majority of the whole board, without factoring in vacancies, was
what the Legislature intended, setting aside the question of whether such a
provision was necessary in light of the broad reach of the majority provision of
Public Authorities Law § 2826, it need not have included the final clause of the
majority provision, but could have simply provided that action may only be taken
"pursuant to the favorable vote of a majority of the board." At the least, such
phrasing would have created ambiguity to be resolved by application of canons of
construction. The Legislature instead related the majority required to the quorum
required at a meeting, and thus the majority provision is most sensibly interpreted
to refer to a majority of the directors attending a meeting that has at least a
quorum.

Additionally, this interpretation avoids the result of authorizing a quorum
that cannot transact routine business. The quorum portion of section 3402(2)(c)
clearly authorizes a lesser number than a majority of the whole to constitute a
quorum, for example, six directors, if only ten directors are "then in office", or three
directors, if only five directors are then in office. Interpreting the majority
provision of section 3402(2)(c) to require a majority of the whole number without
considering the number of vacancies on the board would require approval by eight
votes, always, without respect to the number of directors "then in office," to transact
business. Under this interpretation, the board could easily find itself with a
quorum that has significantly fewer directors than would be required to have the
board act. We do not believe the Legislature intended such a result. Instead, we
believe that the second sentence of section 3402(2)(c) is best interpreted to mean
that the board cannot take action except upon a favorable vote of a majority of the
directors who attend a meeting at which a quorum is present. The number of votes
necessary to approve action then will vary in relation to the number of seats filled
and the number of directors who attend a meeting.

For example, when the board has all 15 directors and no vacancies, a quorum is nine directors.
When all 15 directors attend a meeting, the number of votes necessary to approve action is eight. If
only nine directors attend a meeting, they still have a quorum but only need five votes to approve
action. With five vacancies and ten directors, a quorum is six directors. If only six directors attend a
meeting, four votes are needed to approve action, but if all ten directors attend, six votes are needed.

Thus, in summary, we conclude that the provisions of Public Authorities Law
§ 3402(2)(c) govern the number of directors needed to convene a quorum and
transact business, and those numbers vary depending on the number of directors
then in office and the number of directors attending a meeting at which a quorum is
present.

Very truly yours,
KATHRYN SHEINGOLD
Assistant Solicitor General
in Charge of Opinions