Testing the constitutionality of legislative enactments

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 New York, et al, and Assembly of the State of New York, et al, collectively "Majority Defendants",  contended that Plaintiffs' action was properly a CPLR Article 78 proceeding and that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such a proceeding has expired.

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 New York City Health and Hosps. Corp. v McBarnette, 84 NY2d 194, explained that in the event a proceeding or action against a state entity "has been commenced in the form of a declaratory judgment action, for which no specific Statute of Limitations is prescribed, it is necessary to examine the substance of that action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought in order to resolve which Statute of Limitations is applicable". However, noted the Appellate Division, "[I]f the claim could have been made in a form other than an action for a declaratory judgment and the limitations period for an action in that form has already expired, the time for asserting the claim cannot be extended through the simple expedient of denominating the action one for declaratory relief", citing  Matter of Foley v Masiello, 38 AD3d 1201.

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.