Evans v. Carey

• Decision Date: 16 December 1976
• Citation: 391 N.Y.S.2d 393,359 N.E.2d 983,40 N.Y.2d 1008
• Parties: , 359 N.E.2d 983 James T. EVANS et al., Appellants, v. Hugh L. CAREY, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 393

391 N.Y.S.2d 393

40 N.Y.2d 1008, 359 N.E.2d 983

James T. EVANS et al., Appellants, v. Hugh L. CAREY, as Governor of the State of New York, et al.,

Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 16, 1976.

Charles R. Sandler and Ronald L. Jaros, Buffalo, for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Michael F. Colligan and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

MEMORANDUM.

We affirm the order of the Appellate Division and its upholding of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 10 (9 NYCRR 3.10). In such affirmance we, as did the Appellate Division, distinguish Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 N.E.2d 510, a case which recognized and broadly delineated a right to privacy but in a vastly different situation. Rather than rely on such cases as California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (416 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 39 L.Ed.2d 812), United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 434, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71, Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39, and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, each of which involves an unsuccessful challenge to a governmental requirement or governmental demand directing a third party to maintain records or disclose information, we rest instead on the authority of cases such as United Publ Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754, Civil Serv. Comm. v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796, Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830, and Illinois State Employees Assn. v. Walker, 57 Ill.2d 512, 315 N.E.2d 9, cert. den. Sub nom. Troopers Lodge No. 41 v. Walker, 419 U.S. 1058, 95 S.Ct. 642, 42 L.Ed.2d 656 where, as here, the rights and interests of government employees, as citizens, were balanced against the rights and interests of the government, as employer. The Executive Order requiring financial disclosure was designed to eliminate inefficiency and deter official corruption, significant public interests, and does not infringe upon individual employees' constitutional rights.

JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER and COOKE, JJ., concur.

BREITEL, C.J., and GABRIELLI and FUCHSBERG, JJ., concur in the following memorandum:

Although the opinion of Mr. Presiding Justice John Marsh at the Appellate Division cogently justifies on constitutional grounds a statute requiring financial disclosures by public employees and officers, it does not address itself to whether a statute, ad...