Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fold, Van Voobhis, Burke and Foster. Judge Fboessel dissents in the following opinion:

I dissent. The majority hold that the subject matter of the bill in mimeographed and printed form was before the couneilmen for the full required statutory period. I do not agree.

Section 37 of chapter 2 of the Charter of the City of New York provides: “No local law shall be passed until it shall have been in its final form and upon the desks of the couneilmen at least seven calendar days, exclusive of Sundays, prior to its final passage * * (Emphasis supplied.) That requirement is not directory but mandatory {People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 439).

Local Law No. 14, here involved, was on the couneilmen’s desks from December 16 until its passage on December 23. Under *765section 20 of the General Construction Law, the first day must be excluded from the computation. Thus, disregarding the first ■ day and the intervening Sunday, the bill was before the councilmen for not more than six calendar days. The City Council was powerless to give retroactive effect to Local Law No. 14.

Order affirmed.