NYCL AGO 95-38.

• Case Date: July 25, 1995
• Court: New York

New York Attorney General Opinions 1995. AGO 95-38. July 25, 1995Informal Opinion No. 95-38Robert D. Cook, Esq. Corporation Counsel No. 95-38 City of Kingston City Hall, One Garraghan Drive Kingston, NY 12401NY CONST ART IX § 2(c)(7); GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 199-r(1)(d); MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW § 10(1)(ii)(a)(7).There is nothing legally objectionable to the sale of advertising space on Kingston's bus system, as it is a business activity directly related to the legitimate public function of operating Kingston's transit system.Dear Mr. Cook: You have inquired as to whether the City of Kingston may raise revenue by permitting private enterprises to advertise on the City's public bus transportation system. Local governments have the constitutional and statutory power to acquire, own and operate transit facilities for the benefit of their residents. NY Const Art IX § 2(c)(7); Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (1)(ii)(a)(7). Among other powers, the General Municipal Law grants a municipal corporation the authority to operate mass transportation systems in order to serve the public at adequate levels and at reasonable costs, and to contract with privately owned mass transporation systems for provision of service to its residents. General Municipal Law § 119-r. Since a municipality has the authority to operate a public bus system, it also by necessity has the authority to regulate the manner in which it is operated. See, New York State School Bus Operators Assoc. v County of Nassau, 39 NY2d 638 (1976). Your letter of inquiry accurately notes that several of our previous opinions have expressed the view that a municipality is not authorized to permit public property to be...