IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE P. FLYNN, RESPONDENT, v. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION,
  DEPARTMENT OF STATE, STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT.

    87 N.Y.2d 199, 661 N.E.2d 991, 638 N.Y.S.2d 418
    December 21, 1995

   3 No. 295(1995 NY Int. 292)
   Decided December 21, 1995
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Frank K. Walsh, for Appellant.
   Paul A. Levine, for respondent. BELLACOSA, J.:

   This statutory construction case poses the question whether the State
   Ethics Commission has jurisdiction under Executive Law § 94(12) over
   an employee who has resigned from State service. Because the governing
   statute does not confer such extended jurisdiction over a former
   employee expressly or by necessary implication, we affirm the
   determinations of the lower courts.

   Petitioner Flynn was the Adjutant General of the State Division of
   Military Affairs. In April 1990, the State Ethics Commission began an
   investigation into allegations that he had accepted free tickets to an
   antique show sponsored by a private organization and held at the Park
   Avenue Armory in New York City. The Armory was under Flynn's State
   military authority. In November 1990, the Commission sent Flynn a
   notice pursuant to Executive Law § 94(12) detailing its allegations
   and gave him 15 days to respond. He did so in early December 1990.

   More than a year and a half later, in July 1992, without any
   intervening contact from the Commission, Flynn retired from State
   service. In December 1992, two years after Flynn's response to the
   initial notice and more than five months after his retirement, the
   Commission sent a Notice of Reasonable Cause to Flynn and to the
   Governor, pursuant to Executive Law § 94(12)(b). The notice alleged
   that Flynn had violated Public Officers Law § 73(5) by attending the
   antique show in December 1989 and not paying the per person admission
   charge of $500 for his guest and himself. Section 73(5) prohibits,
   generally, the receipt of anything of value over $75 under
   circumstances where one could reasonably infer a promise of influence
   or a reward for official action. Additionally, Flynn was accused of
   violating Public Officers Law § 74(3)(f), in that accepting the free
   admission while ultimately bearing responsibility for the approval of