94 N.Y.2d 1 (1999)

r
r

A law that withholds legislators’ salaries until the state budget is passed does not violate the New York Constitution’s guarantee of a fixed annual salary or the separation of powers doctrine.

r
r

Summary

r

Fourteen New York State legislators challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 635 of the Laws of 1998, which mandated the withholding of legislators’ salaries if the state budget was not passed by the start of the fiscal year. The legislators argued the law violated Article III, Section 6 of the New York Constitution (fixed salaries) and the separation of powers doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling of unconstitutionality, holding that the law was constitutional. The court reasoned that withholding salaries served as an incentive for timely budget passage and did not impinge on constitutional rights or the separation of powers.

r
r

Facts

r

In December 1998, the New York Legislature passed Chapter 635, which stipulated that if the budget was not passed by the first day of the fiscal year, legislators’ bi-weekly salary installments would be withheld until the budget’s passage. The law defined “legislative passage of the budget” as final action by both houses of the legislature on the Governor’s appropriation bills, certified by the State Comptroller as sufficient for state operations and local assistance. Several legislators sued, arguing the law was unconstitutional.

r
r

Procedural History

r

The legislators filed a hybrid CPLR Article 78/declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court seeking a declaration that Chapter 635 was unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against withholding salaries. The case was treated as cross-motions for summary judgment focusing solely on the statute’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court held that Chapter 635 violated the separation of powers doctrine and Article III, § 6 of the New York Constitution. The State appealed directly to the Court of Appeals.

r
r

Issue(s)

r

1. Whether Chapter 635 of the Laws of 1998 violates Article III, § 6 of the New York Constitution, which guarantees legislators a fixed annual salary.

r

2. Whether Chapter 635 violates the separation of powers doctrine by unduly influencing the legislative process.

r

3. Whether the role assigned to the State Comptroller in determining the sufficiency of the budget constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of responsibility.

r
r

Holding

r

1. No, because Chapter 635 prospectively fixed an annual salary but merely imposed a condition on the timing of payment, which does not violate the constitutional mandate.

r

2. No, because the law adds “procedural oil” to the budget-making process, incentivizing timely budget passage without impermissibly merging or shifting powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.

r

3. No, because the Comptroller’s role fits within their independent fiscal responsibility to audit vouchers and ensure the availability of revenues.

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The Court of Appeals emphasized the presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislative enactments. Regarding Article III, § 6, the Court distinguished this case from New York Public Interest Research Group v. Steingut, noting that the withholding of salary was prospective and neutral, not a selective or manipulative quid pro quo within the enactment year. The Court stated, “By chapter 635 of the Laws of 1998, the Legislature prospectively ‘fixed by law’ an annual salary for its members (NY Const, art III, § 6). The law imposes a discipline within the Legislative Branch itself regarding the timing and method of only its own net compensation.”

r

Regarding the separation of powers, the Court reasoned that Chapter 635 did not impermissibly merge or shift powers. The Court held, “The leverage of negotiating positions is not the theoretical or functional equivalent of lawfully allocated governmental authority. In the end, the Legislature always does the legislating.” The court emphasized that the Legislature’s action was bicameral and enjoyed the presumed validity of law. The Court added, “It is institutional interdependence rather than functional independence that best summarizes the American idea of protecting liberty by fragmenting power.” The court noted the