Donohue v. New York State Police, 19 N.Y.2d 395 (1967)

A citizen-taxpayer lacks standing to challenge the validity of governmental acts (legislative or executive) unless they demonstrate a personal injury suffered as a result of those acts, distinct from the injury suffered by the public at large.

Summary

Donohue, a state trooper, brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging the constitutionality of a promotional examination for Sergeant of the State Police. Although he initially passed the exam, he was later dismissed from the force for insubordination. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that Donohue lacked standing to maintain the proceeding. The Court emphasized that a citizen-taxpayer cannot challenge governmental actions without demonstrating a specific, personal injury distinct from the general public, reaffirming the principle that courts should not provide judicial interpretations of legislative or executive actions absent a concrete controversy affecting individual rights.

Facts

Donohue, a member of the New York State Police, took and passed a promotional examination for Sergeant.
Subsequently, charges of insubordination were brought against him, and he was dismissed from the State Police.
Prior to his dismissal, he initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the constitutionality of the promotional examination he had passed, as well as the Department Rules and Regulations under which the examination was held.

Procedural History

Special Term initially dismissed the original application.
After Donohue passed the exam, Special Term set aside Article 10 and the Sergeant examination, as well as a Lieutenant examination.
The Appellate Division sustained the order annulling the Sergeant examination but declined to rule on the Lieutenant examination.
The Court of Appeals granted cross-appeals and considered the issue of Donohue’s standing to bring the Article 78 proceeding.

Issue(s)

Whether a citizen-taxpayer has standing to challenge the validity of an executive act (such as a promotional examination by the State Police) without demonstrating a personal injury distinct from that suffered by the general public.

Holding

No, because a citizen-taxpayer must demonstrate a personal injury suffered as a result of the challenged governmental act to have standing; absent such injury, the courts will not intervene to provide judicial interpretations of legislative or executive actions.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court relied on the principle established in previous cases, including St. Clair v. Yonkers Raceway, that a citizen-taxpayer lacks standing to challenge governmental acts without showing a specific, personal injury. The court emphasized that Donohue’s passing of the examination initially, and subsequent dismissal for insubordination, demonstrated no personal injury stemming from the examination itself. The Court reasoned that allowing citizen-taxpayers to challenge governmental acts without demonstrating personal injury would improperly involve the judiciary in reviewing actions of the executive or legislative branches absent a concrete controversy affecting individual rights. The Court quoted Schieffelin v. Komfort, stating that the judicial branch does not have “general authority at the suit of a citizen as such to sit in review of the acts of other branches of government,” but may only act “when a controversy arises between litigants.” The Court distinguished the case from situations where the issue, though moot for the individual, affects the entire state or involves transactions likely to arise frequently, justifying judicial intervention. Because Donohue demonstrated no personal injury and the case did not fall within the exception for issues affecting the entire state, the Court reversed the Appellate Division and directed dismissal of the petition.