Diederich v. St. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 04 November 2010
• Citation: 911 N.Y.S.2d 218,78 A.D.3d 1290
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In the Matter of Michael DIEDERICH Jr., Individually and on Behalf of all Taxpayers of the County of Rockland, Appellant, et al., Petitioner, v. Christopher ST. LAWRENCE, Defendant, and Holland & Knight, LLP, et al., Respondents.

911 N.Y.S.2d 218

78 A.D.3d 1290

In the Matter of Michael DIEDERICH Jr., Individually and on Behalf of all Taxpayers of the County of Rockland, Appellant, et al., Petitioner,

v. Christopher ST. LAWRENCE, Defendant,andHolland & Knight, LLP, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Nov. 4, 2010.

Michael D. Diederich Jr., Stony Point, appellant pro se.

Holland & Knight, LLP., New York City (Robert Burns of counsel), for Holland & Knight, LLP, respondent.

Westervelt & Rea, Nyack (Kimberlea Shaw Rea of counsel), for Rockland Solid Waste Management Authority, respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

LAHTINEN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered June 17, 2009 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, among other things, granted certain respondents'motions for summary judgment dismissing the petition/complaint.

Petitioner Michael Diederich Jr. (hereinafter petitioner) is an attorney who resides in Rockland County. He commenced this action ¹ alleging, among other things, that respondent Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority (hereinafter the Authority) ( see Public Authorities Law art. 13-M) wasted taxpayer money by paying respondent Holland & Knight, LLP a legal fee of $104,000 for preparing an amicus curiae brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court in the case United Haulers Assn. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330, 127 S.Ct. 1786, 167 L.Ed.2d 655 [2007]. Petitioner contends that he (as well as other attorneys) had more relevant expertise and would have completed the legal work for substantially less money. The Authority and Holland & Knight moved for summary judgment challenging petitioner's standing to bring the action/proceeding as well as his substantive allegations. Supreme Court dismissed the matter finding that petitioner had not established standing under the common law or State Finance Law § 123-b. Petitioner appeals.

Common-law standing requires a showing of "an injury in fact, distinct from that of the general public," that falls within the zone of interests promoted or protected by the pertinent regulation or statute ( Matter of Transactive Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 92 N.Y.2d 579, 587, 684 N.Y.S.2d 156, 706 N.E.2d 1180 [1998]; see Matter of Colella v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 95 N.Y.2d 401, 410, 718 N.Y.S.2d 268, 741 N.E.2d 113 [2000]; Matter of Humane Socy. of U.S., Inc., v. Brennan, 63 A.D.3d 1419, 1420, 881 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2009] ). Petitioner asserts that as a taxpayer in Rockland County, the challenged expenditure for legal services resulted in a slight increase in his tax bill, which caused him injury. He further argues that local taxpayers constitute a sufficiently distinct group from the general publicbecause the general public includes many individuals not subject to this particular tax, such as "itinerants, family members, children, the homeless [and] the confined." Accepting petitioner's argument would essentially eliminate the requirement of a distinct injury, and such a strained interpretation of the requirement finds no support in the case law. Petitioner has failed to allege an injury distinct from other taxpayers and, thus, has not met his burden as to common-law standing ( see Matter of Quigley v. Town of Ulster, 66 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 887 N.Y.S.2d 381 [2009]; Diederich v. Rockland County Police Chiefs' Assn., 33 A.D.3d 653, 654, 823 N.Y.S.2d 106 [2006], appeal dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 875, 832 N.Y.S.2d 485, 864 N.E.2d 615 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 1018, 839 N.Y.S.2d 449, 870 N.E.2d 689 [2007]; see also Matter of Colella v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 95 N.Y.2d at 410, 718 N.Y.S.2d 268, 741 N.E.2d 113).

Petitioner also contends that he has common-law taxpayer standing ² because the Authority allegedly acted ultravires when it spent funds for an amicus brief ( see generally Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 813-814, 766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 [2003], cert. denied 540 U.S. 1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430 [2003]; Boryszewski v. Brydges, 37 N.Y.2d 361, 363-364, 372 N.Y.S.2d 623, 334 N.E.2d 579 [1975] ). We are unpersuaded. Common-law taxpayer standing implicates "important governmental actions" that would otherwise evade judicial review, and the doctrine "should not be applied ... to permit challenges to the determinations of local governmental officials having no appreciable public significance beyond the immediately affected parties, by persons having only the remotest legitimate interest in the matter" ( Matter of Colella v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 95 N.Y.2d at 410-411, 718 N.Y.S.2d 268, 741 N.E.2d 113; see Saratoga County Chamber of...