Saxton v. Carey

• Decision Date: 08 June 1978
• Citation: 378 N.E.2d 95,44 N.Y.2d 545,406 N.Y.S.2d 732
• Parties: , 378 N.E.2d 95 Walter A. SAXTON et al., Appellants, v. Hugh L. CAREY, Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 732

406 N.Y.S.2d 732

44 N.Y.2d 545, 378 N.E.2d 95

Walter A. SAXTON et al., Appellants, v. Hugh L. CAREY, Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 8, 1978.

Ira M. Ball, Utica, for appellant pro se and for Walter A. Saxton and another, appellants

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Jean M. Coon and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GABRIELLI, Judge.

This court is presented with a frontal attack on the entire 1978-1979 State budget. It is urged that this budget for the operation of the State of New York is invalid and that both the executive and legislative action on the budget for the operation of the State as well as for aid and assistance to local governments, are violative of the State Constitution. These three plaintiffs have brought this action for declaratory relief seeking a judgment declaring the budget to be constitutionally infirm and, further, they seek to enjoin the Governor, legislative leaders, the fiscal committees of the Senate and Assembly, and the Legislature itself from "exercising any and all alleged functions, powers, authority, duties, rights and responsibilities relating to the legislative process of enacting" the budget and implementing budget bills.

Noting that the budget at that time had not yet been approved by the Legislature, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as premature. The Appellate Division reinstated the complaint, reasoning that since the gravamen of the complaint went to the claimed failure of the Governor to submit a proper budget, and not any action or failure to act by the Legislature, this action was not premature. That court then declared the budget to be valid.

Initially, we note that the Legislature has since adopted the budget in substantially the same form in which it was submitted by the Governor. Accordingly, we need not consider the arguments presented below concerning prematurity, and we shall instead turn to the merits of the controversy before us.

Appellants correctly urge that the Governor is required to submit an "itemized" budget to the Legislature (N.Y.Const., art. VII, §§ 1-7; People v. Tremaine, 281 N.Y. 1, 21 N.E.2d 891). They argue that the challenged budget is insufficiently itemized to provide the Legislature with the information necessary for that body to properly perform its constitutional role as the ultimate guardian of the public fisc. They also suggest that the inclusion in the budget of a provision allowing the transfer of funds within particular programs and departments following passage of the budget by the Legislature, unconstitutionally precludes effective legislative control over the expenditure of public funds.

A similar challenge was made to the 1971-1972 budget in Hidley v. Rockefeller, 28 N.Y.2d 439, 322 N.Y.S.2d 687, 271 N.E.2d 530. There we found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the budget, and thus the court did not reach the merits of that challenge. In light of our subsequent holding in Boryszewski v. Brydges, 37 N.Y.2d 361, 372 N.Y.S.2d 623, 334 N.E.2d 579, no such barrier precludes the challenge now before the court.

The dispositive question presented by this case is the extent to which the courts of this State may intervene in the budgetary process in order to ensure that the methodology prescribed by the Constitution is properly utilized. The issue is a basic one, involving the application of certain principles fundamental to our system of government. It is, of course, beyond question that the Constitution does require itemization (see People v. Tremaine, supra ). Appellants argue quite properly that it is the responsibility of this court to apply and enforce the will of the people as expressed in our Constitution, even if this results in considerable practical difficulty (see Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Board of Educ., 44 N.Y.2d 831, 406 N.Y.S.2d 752, 378 N.E.2d 115, May 9, 1978; see, also, N.Y.Const. art. VI, § 3, subd. b, par. (8)); and they urge that no branch of government may avoid the mandate of the Constitution (see, e. g., Matter of Greene, 166 N.Y. 485, 60 N.E. 183). From this, they would have us conclude that it is a proper function of the courts to police the degree of itemization necessary in the State budget. We cannot agree with this conclusion, for it would require the courts to assume a role for which they are neither constituted, suited, nor, indeed, designed.

Our State government, like the Federal Government, is a tripartite institution, with power variously distributed between three coequal branches (see N.Y.Const., art. III, § 1; art. IV, § 1; art. VI). It comprises a system of checks and balances intended to ensure "the preservation of liberty itself, which is ended by the union of the three functions in one man, or in one body of men. It is a fundamental principle of the organic law that each department should be free from interference, in the discharge of its peculiar duties, by either of the others" (People ex rel. Burby v. Howland, 155 N.Y. 270, 282, 49 N.E. 775, 779; see, also, People ex rel. Broderick v. Morton, 156 N.Y. 136, 50 N.E. 791). The power of the judiciary is as subject to such limitations as is that of its co-ordinate branches of government, for the spectre of judicial tyranny is no more palatable to a free people than is the threat of an uncontrolled executive or legislative branch.

Under our system of government, the creation and enactment of the State budget is a matter delegated essentially to the Governor and the Legislature. The Governor, as chief executive officer, has the responsibility and the obligation to ascertain the financial needs of the various departments and projects of the State government, and to submit to the Legislature for its consideration a budget and various appropriation bills incorporating those needs (N.Y.Const. art. VII, §§ 2, 3). It is for the Legislature to review that proposed budget, and to approve or disapprove of the various expenditures proposed by the Governor (...