may be found in a declaration of State policy by the State
Legislature . . . or from the fact that the Legislature has
enacted a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a
particular area’’ (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).
However, the fact ‘‘that the State and local laws touch upon the
same area is insufficient to support a determination that the
State has preempted the entire field of regulation in a given
area’’ (Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 71 NY2d 91, 99
[1987]). Moreover, ‘‘[s]tate statutes do not necessarily preempt
local laws having only tangential impact on the State’s
interests. Local laws of general application—which are aimed
11. Prior to the 1991 amendment, the Election Law had limited the provi-
sion of assistance to a voter by anyone other than the election inspectors to
certain family members (see L 1949, ch 100, codified at former Election Law
§ 199 [2]; L 1976, ch 233, § 1, codified at Election Law § 8-306 [3]).
BOARD OF ELECTIONS v MOSTOFI [65 Misc 3d 876] 889
at legitimate concerns of a local government—will not be
preempted if their enforcement only incidentally infringes on a
preempted field’’ (DJL Rest. Corp., 96 NY2d at 97 [citations
and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Arash
Real Estate & Mgt. Co. v New York City Dept. of Consumer Af-
fairs, 148 AD3d 1137, 1139 [2d Dept 2017]; Patrolmen’s Benev-
olent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 142
AD3d 53, 58 [1st Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 978
[2016]).
The Election Law contains no express legislative statement
of an intent to preempt municipal action. NY Constitution,
article II, § 8, however, states a broad policy that would
preclude municipalities from regulating the Board or intrude