LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

COHEN v STATE Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: COHEN, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I99_0127, Constitution, Power, York, Legislation, Government, Legislature, Separation, Budget, Legislators, Supreme Court, Unconstitutionality, Judgement, Bill, Legislative Salaries, Compensation, Powers Doctrine, Ny2d, Appropriation Bill, Cplr, Legislative Passage, Comptroller, Respondents, Salary Installment Payments, Withholding, Expenditures, Senate Debate Transcripts, Timely Fashion , ContentID: 120251753

Case Documents
1 1999-10-14 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 125662
18 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 18 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LAW
COURT
POWER
YORK
LEGISLATION
GOVERNMENT
LEGISLATURE
PLAINTIFFS
SEPARATION
BUDGET
LEGISLATORS
SUPREME COURT
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
JUDGEMENT
BILL
LEGISLATIVE SALARIES
COMPENSATION
POWERS DOCTRINE
NY2D
APPROPRIATION BILL
CPLR
LEGISLATIVE PASSAGE
COMPTROLLER
RESPONDENTS
SALARY INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS
WITHHOLDING
EXPENDITURES
SENATE DEBATE TRANSCRIPTS
TIMELY FASHION


  MICHAEL COHEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT.

    94 N.Y.2d 1 (1999).
    October 14, 1999

   SupC No. 145

   (99 NY Int. 0127)
   Decided October 14, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

    99 N.Y. Int. 0127.
    October 14, 1999

   (99 NY Int. 0127)
   Decided October 14, 1999
     _________________________________________________________________

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

   Preeta D. Bansal, for appellant.
   James D. Herschlein, for respondents.

   BELLACOSA, J.:

   This appeal by the State comes directly to this Court from a Supreme
   Court judgment of unconstitutionality of Chapter 635 of the Laws of
   1998 (CPLR 5601(b)(2)). The Act is challenged solely on a facial
   basis. We reverse, and declare the statute constitutional. It does not
   violate article III, section 6 of the State Constitution, nor does it
   breach the governmental separation of powers doctrine. Also, it does
   not impinge on other constitutional protections asserted by
   plaintiffs.

                                     I.

   On December 18, 1998, the Legislature passed and the Governor approved
   Chapter 635. It states in pertinent part:

     "1. * * * if legislative passage of the budget as defined in
     subdivision three of this section has not occurred prior to the
     first day of any fiscal year, the net amount of any such bi-weekly
     salary installment payments to be paid on or after such day shall
     be withheld and not paid until such legislative passage of the
SNIPPETS:
  • MICHAEL COHEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v.
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • This appeal by the State comes directly to this Court from a Supreme Court judgment of
  • * * * if legislative passage of the budget as defined in subdivision three of this section
  • 'Legislative Passage of the Budget', solely for the purposes of this section * * * shall mean al assistance for the ensuing fiscal year" ).
  • Plaintiffs include individuals who were in office and voted against passage of Chapter 635,
  • These fourteen individuals started a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment lawsuit in
  • Supreme Court held that Chapter 635 violated the separation of powers doctrine and Article
  • At this appeal stage of the controversy, we take judicial notice that the 1999-2000 budget
  • This Court's well-established review power with respect to matters of this kind marks the
  • Because the plaintiffs seek facial invalidation of Chapter 635, they must initially overcome
  • In seeking facial nullification, plaintiffs bear the burden to demonstrate that "in any
  • "Each member of the legislature shall receive for his services a like annual salary, to be
  • In NYPIRG v Steingut, the Court invalidated the system of awarding allowances to legislators
  • On the contrary, it satisfies the constitutional payment mandate, as delineated by this
  • The inducement does not require that the Legislature pass the Governor's budget; only that it
  • Another aspect of the motive behind the legislation is noteworthy.
  •    |