Weimer v. Bd. of Educ., 52 N.Y.2d 148 (1981)
A taxpayer’s action, designed to prevent the misuse of public funds, cannot be assigned to a non-taxpayer because taxpayer status is a prerequisite to maintaining such an action.
Summary
This case addresses whether a taxpayer’s action can be assigned to someone who is not a taxpayer. The Burners, as taxpayers, initiated an action against the Board of Education, alleging illegal expenditure of funds. Weimer, not demonstrably a taxpayer, obtained an assignment of the Burners’ rights and continued the action. The New York Court of Appeals held that such an assignment is against public policy. The court reasoned that the right to bring a taxpayer’s action is intrinsically linked to taxpayer status and cannot be transferred to someone lacking that status. Therefore, Weimer lacked standing to pursue the action.
Facts
George Weimer was removed from his position with the school district. He then filed an Article 78 proceeding. While that proceeding was pending, David and Sandra Burner, alleging to be taxpayers, sued the board claiming it illegally spent funds on attorneys for certain employees in the earlier proceeding.
The Board defended, arguing it acted legally and the Burners were not the real parties in interest.
The Burners’ motions were denied, and the complaint was dismissed.
Procedural History
Special Term dismissed the Burners’ action. Weimer, “as assignee of all the rights title and interest of David Burner and Sandra Burner,” appealed to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division affirmed, without addressing standing. The dissenting judge believed the assignment was valid under state law.
Weimer then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a taxpayer’s action, commenced by qualified taxpayers, can be assigned to an individual who is not demonstrated to be a taxpayer, thereby granting that individual standing to continue the action.
Holding
No, because it is contrary to public policy for a taxpayer’s action to be assigned to one who is not shown to have been a taxpayer at the relevant time; therefore, the assignee lacks standing to continue the action.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that taxpayer status is a sine qua non for maintaining a taxpayer’s action, whether the action is based on statutory or common-law grounds. The court emphasized that the purpose of granting standing to taxpayers is to prevent an “impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny” of governmental actions and to provide a remedy to those who ultimately bear the burden of unjust governmental actions. The court distinguished between a taxpayer acting with mixed motives (personal and public benefit), which is permissible, and a taxpayer allowing their status to be used by an unqualified person, which is not. It also noted that if a taxpayer plaintiff loses their taxpayer status during the action, the action abates unless a qualified person is substituted. The court reasoned that allowing the assignment of a taxpayer’s action to a non-taxpayer would circumvent the policy rationale behind granting standing to taxpayers in the first place. The court stated, “As a matter of public policy, a taxpayer’s grievance does not exist apart from his status as a taxpayer and, therefore, may not be assigned except to another who has such status.” Therefore, the assignment was deemed against public policy, and Weimer lacked standing to appeal. The court emphasized that allowing the assignment of a taxpayer’s action to a non-taxpayer would extend the reach of such actions far beyond their intended purpose.