IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT L. SCHULZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. / IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT L. SCHULZ, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
81 N.Y.2d 336, 615 N.E.2d 953, 599 N.Y.S.2d 469 (1993).
May 11, 1993
3 No. 43 (1993 N.Y. Int. 104)
3 No. 44 (1993 N.Y. Int. 104)
Decided May 11, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
No. 43:
Robert L. Schulz, pro se, Appellant.
Peter G. Crary, for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
No. 44:
Robert L. Schulz, pro se, Appellant.
Frank K. Walsh, for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
BELLACOSA, J.:
In these cases, a group of citizens challenges State financing schemes
embodied in Chapter 190 ("Schulz Appeal #1") and Chapter 220 ("Schulz
Appeal #2") of the Laws of 1990. The lawsuits have failed up to now
for lack of threshold standing to sue. Appellants advance several
theories to support their standing to sue on discrete aspects of the
lawsuits, and argue on the merits that the various public financing
statutes violate provisions of the New York State Constitution
pertaining to how the State may incur debt. We conclude that the
appellants in Schulz Appeal #1 should be accorded standing only on a
constitutional voter basis. However, we affirm the order of the
Appellate Division in that appeal on the sole ground of laches. In
Schulz Appeal #2, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a preserved
substantial constitutional question(n *)
I.
Supreme Court dismissed those portions of the pleading challenging
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT L. SCHULZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Appellants advance several theories to support their standing to sue on discrete aspects of
Supreme Court dismissed those portions of the pleading challenging sections of Chapter 190 of
The dismissal was predicated on the authority of State Finance Law §123-b, New York State
On the State defendants' appeal to the Appellate Division, that court reversed, finding that
The claim to standing as voters is expressly asserted in their primary pleading in this
The challengers asserted that they are registered voters and that they "have standing to
plaintiffs in this case failed to allege their voter status as an express theory of standing
Because plaintiffs did not expressly allege voter standing in the proceeding underlying
Until 1976, this Court consistently "held that the constitutionality of a State statute may
In the present instance it must be considered unlikely that the officials of state government
Serious concerns accompany a complete cloak of immunity that would preclude access to
another distinct threshold procedural issue commands our attention -- the applicability of
These considerations must be examined for their impact on the State, on the operation and
The State defendants' arguments persuade us that the time periods involved here do not meet
|
