Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring that the New York State Legislature violated Article XIX §1 of the New York State Constitution in adopting certain legislation because it advanced a proposed amendment to the Constitution before the Attorney General rendered an opinion in writing as to the effect of the proposed amendment upon other provisions of the Constitution and before the expiration of the 20-day period proscribed for the Attorney General to issue such an opinion.
Defendants
Senate of the State of
Plaintiffs
cross-moved for summary judgment on its complaint and Supreme Court converted
the Majority Defendants' motion to dismiss into one seeking summary judgment.
Supreme Court granted the Majority Defendants' motion to the extent it sought
summary judgment dismissing the complaint against certain named respondents but
otherwise denied the Majority Defendants' motion. Supreme Court, then granted Plaintiffs'
cross-motion and issued a declaration in their favor.
Majority
Defendants appealed Supreme Court's judgment "to the extent that it denied
the Majority Defendants' motion and granted the Plaintiffs' cross-motion".
The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's judgment "insofar as
appealed from".
The
Appellate Division, citing
The
Appellate Division opined that it is well settled that "proceeding under
article 78 is not the proper vehicle to test the constitutionality of legislative
enactments" in contrast to a judicial challenge directed at the procedures
followed by the legislature rather than the substance of the enactment, which
"... is maintainable in an article 78 proceeding," citing Matter of
Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193.
While
Plaintiffs characterize the complaint "as a challenge to the
constitutionality of [Majority Defendants'] actions," the Appellate
Division said "[it] actually alleges an erroneous application of a
constitutional provision relating to the procedure by which" the proposed
amendment was advanced, and therefore it would have been proper to
"proceed[ ] by way of a CPLR article 78 proceeding". Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the
"sole cause of action here is subject to the four-month statute of
limitations and is time-barred."
Click
HERE to access the Appellate Division's
decision posted on the Internet.