Matter of Anderson v. Regan, 42 N.Y.2d 619 (1977)
The Legislature must take express action to abolish a statutorily created position; a failure to appropriate specific funds, alone, is insufficient to eliminate the position or demonstrate legislative intent to do so.
Summary
Anderson, Chairman of the State Bingo Control Commission, sought his salary for a period when the budget lacked specific appropriations for the Commission. The Court of Appeals held that the Legislature did not abolish Anderson’s position by failing to explicitly appropriate funds for it. An attempt to abolish the commission via a separate bill failed. The court emphasized that abolishing a statutorily created office requires clear legislative action and that repeal by implication is disfavored. The court found the legislature’s failure to pass a bill abolishing the commission suggested the intention was to keep it.
Facts
The State Bingo Control Commission was created in 1962 to regulate bingo. Anderson was appointed chairman and reappointed in June 1974 for a term expiring in 1979. The Governor’s 1975-1976 budget recommended abolishing the Commission, with a bill introduced to transfer its functions to the State Wagering and Racing Board. The Assembly passed the bill, but the Senate did not. The enacted budget contained no specific appropriation for the Bingo Control Commission or Anderson’s salary but had a lump-sum appropriation for “Regulation of Wagering.” Following the budget’s enactment, the Racing and Wagering Board began dismantling the Bingo Control Commission’s offices. Anderson received a letter stating his office was terminated, despite no legislative action abolishing the commission. He continued to perform his duties without pay.
Procedural History
Anderson filed a claim for unpaid salary. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment in his favor. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Legislature had not abolished the Bingo Control Commission or Anderson’s position. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Legislature, by enacting the 1975-1976 budget without specific appropriation of funds for the State Bingo Control Commission or its chairman’s salary, abolished the Commission and the office of chairman, either expressly or impliedly?
Holding
No, because the Legislature took no express action to abolish the Bingo Control Commission or the chairman’s office, and repeal by implication is disfavored. The failure to pass legislation explicitly abolishing the commission suggests a lack of intent to eliminate it. The inclusion of language setting the chairman’s salary also implies that the position was valid.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that the Legislature can abolish positions it creates, but this requires explicit action. The court stated that the doctrine of repeal by implication is heavily disfavored and requires an unavoidable conclusion of repugnancy between statutes. The court noted the failed bill explicitly abolishing the commission and the amendment to section 169 of the Executive Law setting the chairman’s salary as evidence to keep the office. The court reasoned that a lump-sum appropriation for wagering regulation did not supersede the specific statutes creating the Bingo Control Commission and its operations. Citing O’Neil v State of New York, 223 NY 40, 44, the court reasoned that failure to appropriate funds does not automatically deprive an officeholder of their salary. The Court distinguished Matter of Blyn v Bartlett, 39 NY2d 349, emphasizing that Anderson’s position was not statutorily conditioned upon the review or approval of any administrative body. The court concluded that reliance on executive policies could not substitute for required legislative action, reinforcing the constitutional mandate that legislative power is vested in the Senate and Assembly.