Saxton v. Carey, 44 N.Y.2d 545 (1978)

The degree of itemization required in a state budget and the extent to which funds can be transferred within programs are legislative and executive decisions, not subject to judicial review unless a specific constitutional violation is demonstrated.

Summary

Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the 1978-1979 New York State budget, arguing it lacked sufficient itemization and unconstitutionally allowed fund transfers within programs, thus impeding legislative control. The Court of Appeals held that determining the level of budget itemization and intra-program fund transfer flexibility is a legislative function. Courts should defer to the legislature’s judgment unless a clear constitutional mandate is violated. The remedy for a poorly itemized budget lies in the voting booth, not the courtroom.

Facts

The Governor submitted a proposed budget for the State of New York. The budget included provisions for the transfer of funds within particular programs and departments after the Legislature approved the budget. Plaintiffs argued the budget was insufficiently itemized, hindering the Legislature’s constitutional role as guardian of public funds, and the transfer provision further eroded legislative control.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint as premature because the Legislature had not yet approved the budget. The Appellate Division reinstated the complaint, finding the core issue was the Governor’s alleged failure to submit a proper budget. The Appellate Division then declared the budget valid. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision on the merits.

Issue(s)

Whether the degree of itemization in the State budget and the provision allowing intra-program transfer of funds are subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the State Constitution.

Holding

No, because the degree of itemization necessary for effective legislative review and the allowance for intra-program fund transfers are decisions within the purview of the Governor and the Legislature, not the courts, unless a specific constitutional mandate is violated.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized the tripartite system of government with coequal branches. Budget creation and enactment are primarily delegated to the Governor and Legislature. While the Constitution mandates itemization, it doesn’t define the specific degree required. The necessary degree of itemization is what allows the Legislature to effectively review the budget; this is a political, not judicial, determination. Quoting Judge Breitel’s dissent in Hidley v. Rockefeller, the court noted, “[t]here is no constitutional definition of itemization… Itemization is an accordion word.” Similarly, allowing fund transfers within programs provides necessary flexibility, and the Legislature’s approval of such provisions indicates their satisfaction. If the Legislature believes the executive branch has too much leeway, the remedy is through legislative action or at the ballot box. The court reaffirmed its role in resolving disputes concerning the scope of authority granted to the other branches but declined to extend judicial power into budget specifics. As the court stated, “Direct concern with the degree of particularization or subdivision of items lies exclusively with the executive and legislative branches of government simply because they are the sole participants in the negotiation and adoption of an executive budget”.