Igneri v. Moore, 89-CV-517.
| Citation | 721 F. Supp. 406 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-CV-517.,89-CV-517. |
| Parties | Olga IGNERI, Individually and as Chairwoman of the Richmond County Republican Committee, Joseph Igneri, Howard Lim, Jr., Individually and as Chairman of the New York County Conservative Party Committee and Joyce Lim, Plaintiffs, v. Elizabeth D. MOORE, Chairwoman of the New York State Ethics Commission, and Joseph J. Buderwitz, Jr., Angelo A. Costanza, Norman Lamm and Robert B. McKay, Members of the New York State Ethics Commission, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
DeGraff, Foy, Conway, Holt-Harris & Mealey (David F. Kunz and Kirk Lewis, of counsel), Albany, N.Y., for plaintiffs.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of N.Y. (David Roberts, of counsel), Albany, N.Y., for defendants.
On July 2, 1987, the New York State Legislature enacted the "Ethics in Government Act," legislation unanimously approved by the State Senate and Assembly as a part of an "effort to restore public trust and confidence in government," Governor's Approval Memorandum, 1987 N.Y. St.Legis.Ann. 279, 280 also included in Bill Jacket for L.1987, ch. 813 (Senate Bill 6441), "by limiting opportunities for abuse of official positions and eliminating any appearance of undue influence or illegal profit-taking by executive officers and employees, legislative officers and employees, elected officials, party officers and candidates for office," Governor's 1987 Program Bill Memorandum, Bill Jacket for L.1987, ch. 813. This "sweeping reform" legislation, signed into law by the Governor on August 7, 1987, seeks to "establish strong ethical standards to govern the conduct of public officers and employees in all three branches of government," Governor's Approval Memorandum, supra, by (a) "first and foremost ... requiring the filing of comprehensive financial disclosure statements to reveal income, assets and debts of reporting individuals, (b) ... prohibiting representation before most State agencies, and (c) ... establishing Ethics Commissions to monitor, investigate and impose sanctions for violations of the conflict of interest prohibitions and financial disclosure requirements," Governor's 1987 Program Bill Memorandum, supra. To this end, the "Ethics in Government Act" (hereafter the "Act") added section 73-a to the Public Officers Law, amended section 73 of that law and added section 94 to the Executive Law, respectively.
Insofar as the financial disclosure statements are concerned, and to the extent pertinent to the dispute before the court, section 73-a requires political party chairpersons of county committees — party officials elected as provided in New York Election Law § 2-112 — from counties having a population of 300,000 or more or who receive compensation or expenses, or both, during the calendar year aggregating at least $30,000 to "file an annual statement of financial disclosure containing the information and in the form set forth in § 73-a(3) ... on or before the fifteenth day of May with respect to the preceding calendar year," subject to certain exceptions. N.Y. Pub.Off.L. § 73-a(2)(a) (McKinney 1988); see also id. § 73-a(1)(h) (); N.Y. Elec.L. § 1-104(5) (McKinney 1978) (definition of "party officer").
Briefly stated, the annual statement of financial disclosure seeks detailed information about business associations of the reporting individual, that person's spouse and any unemancipated children, about the occupations or employment engaged in by this class of persons, about a wide variety of financial matters (including income, indebtedness and investments of different types) and about the reporting individual's membership in any political party, political organization or political party committee as those terms are defined in the election law. See N.Y.Pub.Off.L. § 73-a(3) (text appended); see also N.Y.Elec.L. § 1-104(3) (definition of "party") and (12) (definition of "independent body"). The financial disclosure requirements of section 73-a, which went into effect on January 1, 1989, are deemed to be "in the public interest and no adverse inference of unethical or illegal conduct or behavior will be drawn merely from compliance with the law." N.Y.Pub.Off.L. § 73-a(3). Section 94 of the Executive Law, however, provides procedures by which a person required to file a financial disclosure statement can request deletion of material from the copy to be made available for public inspection pursuant to Executive Law § 94(17)(a)(1), see N.Y.Exec.L. § 94(9)(h) and (18)(h)(1) (McKinney Supp. 1989) (procedures relating to deletion of an item or items of information), or even an exemption from financial disclosure requirements pertaining to the reporting individual's spouse or unemancipated children, see id. § 94(9)(i) and (18)(h)(2) (). See also Public Advisory Council's "Procedures to Request Deletions or Exemptions From Financial Disclosure". Nevertheless, the failure otherwise to truthfully comply with the financial disclosure provisions may result in the imposition of a civil penalty (not to exceed $10,000) or in the criminal prosecution of a misdemeanor. N.Y.Pub.Off.L. § 73-a(4).
Insofar as the provisions in the Act pertaining to the regulation of professional and business activities are concerned, briefly stated, section 73(4) enacts a prohibition on selling goods or services to a State agency or to the City of New York unless in each case the "goods or services are provided pursuant to an award or contract let after public notice and competitive bidding," N.Y.Pub.Off.L. § 73(4) (McKinney 1988), and section 73(7) enacts a prohibition from accepting compensation for appearing before State or New York City agencies in connection with a variety of activities, see id. § 73(7)(a) and (b) (McKinney 1988). These provisions also went into effect on January 1, 1989.
Plaintiffs — Olga Igneri, the Richmond County Republican Party chairwoman since October 1987, Howard Lim, Jr., the New York County Conservative Party chairman since 1978, and their respective spouses — have commenced the present action challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements and the limitations on their professional and business activities. More specifically, plaintiffs' complaint can be read as asserting challenges (a) to the disclosure requirements and the restrictions on their professional and business activities as violative of their First amendment right to freedom of association and their Fourteenth amendment right to substantive due process (in this latter regard, plaintiffs contend that it is an improper and unwarranted exercise of the State's power to impose such disclosure requirements on political party leaders in the absence of a compelling countervailing public interest), (b) to the disclosure requirements as violative of their constitutionally protected right of privacy, (c) to the disclosure requirements and the restrictions on their professional and business activities as violative of their Fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the laws (in this regard, plaintiffs contend that sections 73 and 73-a have established arbitrary and unreasonable classifications with respect to those persons who must file these financial disclosure reports and whose professional and business activities are to be subject to restriction), and (d) to the public access provisions as violative of their Fourteenth amendment right to due process on the ground that the standard to be applied in determining requests for deletion of information is vague and is, in any event, inapplicable to county committee political party chairpersons.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged provisions of sections 73 and 73-a are unconstitutional and that they are therefore relieved from any obligation to comply with them.
Soon after this action was commenced, the New York State Ethics Commission granted plaintiffs an extension until June 30, 1989 for filing the statutorily-mandated financial disclosure statements, thereby rendering unnecessary a decision then on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Each side thereafter moved for dispositive relief in its favor (with the knowledge nonetheless that the court would be holding an evidentiary hearing so that certain issues of fact, potentially material depending upon the substantive law eventually deemed applicable based on the ultimate view of the case taken by the court, could be developed more fully): defendants, i.e., the five members of the New York State Ethics Commission, have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) asserting primarily that the court should abstain under the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), and that the plaintiffs lack standing; alternatively, defendants have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have also moved for summary judgment in their favor. As stated in their memoranda of law in support of their motion for summary judgment, and as became apparent at the hearing, plaintiffs have limited their challenge to that portion of the Act "that requires certain political party chairmen to file financial disclosure statements." Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law at 1.
A hearing was held at which testimony was given and other evidence received and at which the parties were able to argue their respective positions in connection with and in opposition to the ultimate dispositive relief sought by both sides. This memorandum-decision incorporates the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons that follow, the court grants judgment to plaintiffs, and declares the financial disclosure provisions, as challenged by plaintiffs, relating to the filing of an annual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Slekis v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
-
Igneri v. Moore
...for summary judgment and denied defendants' alternative motions. The court did not reach the other constitutional issues. See 721 F.Supp. 406 (N.D.N.Y.1989). We reverse and In 1987, as part of a broad-ranging effort to combat political corruption, the New York legislature enacted the Ethics......
- Cameron v. Olin Corp.
- Feldt v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.