Hecht v. LaValle, 45 N.Y.2d 308 (1978)

The judiciary can review legislative actions when they involve significant questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, and when they impact the legitimacy of an important office, even if the dispute has political overtones.

Summary

Republican members of the New York State Senate and Assembly challenged the election of three Regents of the University of the State of New York in a joint legislative session. The plaintiffs argued that the session was improperly convened and lacked a proper quorum. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the judiciary can review legislative actions when they involve significant questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, and when they impact the legitimacy of an important office. The court determined that the joint session was duly convened and a quorum was present, emphasizing that once convened, the two houses merge into a unicameral body where a quorum is simply a majority of the total membership.

Facts

The Assembly and Senate were unable to fill three vacancies on the State Board of Regents by concurrent resolution. As required by Section 202 of the Education Law, a joint session was scheduled. The Senate debated procedural matters. The Lieutenant Governor, as President of the Senate, recessed the Senate and went to the Assembly Chamber to participate in the joint session, where, at approximately 5:40 p.m., she reconvened the joint session. Jorge L. Batista, Mary Alice Kendall, and Louis E. Yavner were nominated and elected Regents. Fewer than half of the Senators but more than half of the Assemblymen attended.

Procedural History

Petitioners commenced an Article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court granted, annulling the election. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, declaring the joint session invalid but finding a quorum was present. The Lieutenant Governor, the challenged Regents, and the original petitioners cross-appealed.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the case involved an internal legislative dispute that the courts should refrain from entertaining under the separation of powers doctrine?
2. Whether the joint session was duly convened according to Section 202 of the Education Law?
3. Whether a quorum was present at the time of the election, requiring a majority of both houses or a majority of the total members present?

Holding

1. No, because this case involves significant questions of law and impacts the legitimacy of important offices.
2. Yes, because Section 202 mandates the joint session, and the procedure used provided both constructive and actual notice.
3. Yes, a quorum only required a majority of the total membership of the unicameral body because once convened, the two houses merge into one body.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals first addressed the argument that the case involved an internal legislative dispute, which the courts should refrain from entertaining under the separation of powers doctrine, citing Matter of Gottlieb v. Duryea. The court distinguished Gottlieb, stating that this case involves significant questions of law relative to Section 202 of the Education Law and questions the legitimacy of the Regents’ offices, affecting the validity of actions taken by the Board of Regents. The court stated, “Thus, this case involves more than just a question of compliance with section 202 of the Education Law; it involves the more significant question whether these three persons legally held and exercised the powers of the important office of Regent of the University of the State of New York.”

Regarding whether the joint session was duly convened, the court noted that Section 202 mandates the joint session when the houses fail to agree. The court found that formal resolutions were not necessary and that the Lieutenant Governor’s actions were sufficient to convene the session, emphasizing that both houses had constructive and actual notice. The court also held that the absence of agreed-upon rules does not invalidate the session, as it would then be governed by generally accepted rules of parliamentary procedure.

Finally, the court addressed the quorum issue, rejecting the argument that a majority of both houses was required. It reasoned that once the joint session convenes, the two houses merge into a unicameral body, and a quorum is simply a majority of the total membership, regardless of which house the members belong to. The court emphasized that requiring a majority of each house would allow the statute to be frustrated, especially when the initial deadlock resulted from the houses’ political division. The court cited several cases from other jurisdictions supporting this view. “Only by defining quorum in this manner can there be any reasonable assurance that the purpose of section 202 of the Education Law—to insure that deadlocks in the election of Regents will be resolved—can be accomplished.”