About CJA
Our History
Our Mission
Who We Are
Awards & Honors

Published Pieces


Judicial Selection

Judicial Discipline

Test Cases:
Federal (Mangano)
State (Commission)

"Disruption of Congress"
Paper Trail to Jail
Paper Trail from Jail
The Appeals

Judicial Compensation

Informing the Voters

Press Suppression

Suing The New York Times
Background Paper Trail

Searching for Champions:

Bar Associations
Nader & Others

Our Members' Efforts


Join Us!

Constitutional, Statutory, & Rule Provisions,
Caselaw, Law Review articles, etc.
CJA's 1st & 2nd citizen-taxpayer actions


New York State Constitution

Constitutional provisions pertaining to the Budget
Article VII, §§1-7; Article IV,§7

Constitutional and statutory provisions pertaining to the timeliness
of the Governor's budget bills & legislation
Constitution, Article VII,§§2, 3; State Finance Law §22(16)

Constitutional, rule, and statutory provisions pertaining to openness
Article III, §10; Senate Rules XI, §1; V, §5d, §7; VI, §1; VIII, §3, §4, §5, §7;  IX, §6; XV;  
Assembly Rules II, §1; III, §2; IV, §2, §3; V, §2, §5; VI; Public Officers Law, Articles VI, VII

Senate & Assembly rules mandating memos, fiscal notes, impact statements
Senate Rule VII, §1; Senate Rule VIII, §7; Assembly Rule III, §1f, §2a;
Permanent Joint Senate/Assembly Rule I

Statutes pertaining to reappropriations -- & relevant constitutional provisions
State Finance Law §25, §43; Article III, §16

Statutory and rule provisions pertaining to legislative budget schedule
Legislative Law §53, §54-a; Senate-Assembly Joint Rule III; Assembly Rule I, §8

Statutory and rule provisions pertaining to budget conference committees
Legislative Law §54-a; Senate-Assembly Joint Rules III, II
Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2007

A-2755   S-1322

Statutes pertaining to legislative budget hearings
Legislative Law §31, §32-a

Senate & Assembly rules pertaining to amendments
Senate Rule VII, §4b; IX, §4; Assembly Rule III, §1f; Assembly Rule III, §6

Statutes mandating legislative reports on the budget
Legislative Law §54; State Finance Law §22-b

Senate & Assembly rules pertaining to oversight & annual reports
Senate Rule VIII, §4(c), §4(d); Assembly Rule IV, §1(d), §1(e), §4(b), §9

Constitutional provisions pertaining to messages of necessity
Article III, §14, Articles VII, §§4-5


See, also: "Albany's Dysfunction Denies Due Process"
Professor Eric Lane, Pace Law Review (2010)

click here for:  Rules Reform Resource Page
posting Brennan Center Reports --2004, 2006, 2008

Budget Cases

Pataki v. Assembly & Senate
Silver v. Pataki
Court of Appeals decision (2004)

briefs before Court of Appeals
[Silver] Silver's brief - March 26, 2004
[Silver] Senate brief - March 29, 2004
[Silver] Governor's brief - July 19, 2004
[Silver] Silver's reply brief - August 20, 2004

[Silver] Senate reply brief - August 20, 2004

[Pataki] Assembly brief - August 12, 2004
[Pataki] Senate brief - August 13, 2004
[Pataki] Governor's brief- October 20, 2004
[Pataki] Assembly reply brief - October 29. 2004
[Pataki] Senate reply brief - November 1, 2004

Pataki v. Assembly & Senate
Albany Supreme Court decision (Malone) (2002)
Appellate Division, Third Department decision (2004)

Silver v. Pataki
Manhattan Supreme Court decision (Lehner) (2002)
Appellate Division, First Department decision (2003)

"The New York State Budget Process and the Constitution:
Defining and Protecting the 'Delicate Balance of Power
Association of the Bar of the City of New York
(Committee on State Affairs),
58 The Record 345 (Oct. 2003)

Rockefeller Institute --
Budgets & the Balance of Power:
The Lasting Impact of Silver v. Pataki &
How It Shapes the Future of Government in New York State (June 16, 2015)

Albany Law School-Institute of Legal Studies
continuing legal education


New York State Bankers Association v. Wetzler
Court of Appeals decision (1993)


Winner v. Cuomo
Appellate Division, 3rd Dept decision (1992)


Saxton v. Carey
Court of Appeals decision (1978)
Appellate Division, 3rd Dept decision (1978)

Levitt v. Rockefeller
Supreme Court decision (1972)

Hidley v. Rockefeller
Court of Appeals decision(1971)
Appellate Division, 3rd Dept decision (1971)

Tremaine 2
Court of Appeals decision (1939)
Appellate Division, 3rd Dept decision (1939)

Tremaine I 
Court of Appeals decision (1929)
Appellate Division 3rd Dept decision (1929)



As to the unconstitutionality of three-men-in-a-room
budget deal-making

King v. Cuomo -- Court of Appeals decision (1993)
Seymour v. Cuomo -- Appellate Division 3rd Dept decision (1992)

See, also "The Anti-Corruption Principle",
Professor Zephyr Teachout, Cornell Law Review (2009)


other relevant cases:

Michael Cohen v. New York State
Court of Appeals decision (1999)
NY Supreme Court decision (1999)

Bellacosa/Ct of Appeals: 

The Governor proposes a budget, recommending appropriations (NY Const, art VII, §3), and the Legislature may strike out or reduce items, as well as propose its own additions (NY Const, art VII, §4). The Governor's proposals, if enacted by the Legislature (both Houses acting in harmony), shall become law without further Executive action; appropriations for the Legislature and Judiciary and any proposed additional appropriations, however, are subject to the Governor's further action (NY Const, art VII, §4).


Chapter 635 of the Laws of 1998 adds procedural oil to this delicately calibrated mechanism. The Legislature, as a Branch of government, must have "finally acted on" the appropriations submitted by the Governor before individuallegislators may be paid. The inducement does not require that the Legislature pass the Governor's budget; only that it pass a budget (see, Senate Debate Transcripts, pp 6622–6629, 6625–6626, Bill Jacket, L 1998, ch 635).

Just as the plaintiffs theorize about scenarios where the Governor may "force" legislators into budgetary submission, competing hypotheses may be composed. For example, the Legislature could simply have stricken some of the Governor's proposed appropriations and offered no additions of its own. The State would then have had an instant budget over which the Governor would have had no subsequent, separate, constitutionally assigned role."

Korn v. Gulotta, 72 NY2d 363 (1988)

 "A budget is a statement of the financial position of the government, for a definite period of time, based upon an estimate of proposed expenditures and anticipated revenues... . The method by which public budgets are prepared is governed by the State Constitution and the applicable State statutes. The requirements contained in those documents are not particularly burdensome and permit the executive and legislative officials considerable freedom of action in implementing governmental operations and programs and providing for the revenues to fund them. The legal requirements they contain, however, are grounded in the general principles of fiscal responsibility and the accountability that underpins the regulation of all public conduct and they must be followed."

      dissent: "where a budget is prepared in clear violation of a statutory or constitutional mandate, it is subject to review by the courts (see, Wein v Carey, 41 N.Y.2d 498; Matter of Block v Sprague, 285 N.Y. 69)."

Block v. Sprague, 285 NY 69 (1941)

Wein v. State of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 136 (1976)

Wein v. Carey, 41 N.Y.2d 498 (1977)  -- "constitutionally mandated and meticulously directed process (NY Const, art VII, §§ 1-4)"


VIDEO of NYS Senate Select Committee on Budget & Tax Reform's December 17, 2009 hearing

Transcript & written statements

*    *    *




Governor Cuomo's April 13, 2016 press release "Governor Cuomo Vetoes 210 Legislative Additions to the 2016-2017 Legislative Budget"     specifications of vetoes



Where's the Comptroller?


       Discovering the Hidden History of "Budget Reform"

S.8414/A.11995  - 2006

S07615 -- 2004 

Senate passes budget reform legislation -- Catharine Young (Jan. 2007)


Robert B. Ward/The Rockefeller Institute Press  (2nd edition, 2006)

Chapter 10:  State Government's Biggest Job: The Budget

"The Constitution sets no date for budget adoption; under the State Finance Law, the state’s fiscal year
begins on April 1."  (at p. 259)

"The state’s fiscal year is set in statute (not the Constitution) as April 1 through March 31." (at p. 261)

"The state Constitution does not specify when the budget must be adopted, but State Finance Law sets the fiscal year as April 1 through March 31."  (at p. 264)

Miscellaneous Historical Materials:

2010 John Sampson on budget

April 11, 2011 budget process

October 5, 2011 video -- budget conference committees make a difference

2013 budget conference


click here for: 

CJA's Citizen-Taxpayer Action to End NYS' Corrupt Budget "Process"
& Unconstitutional "Three Men in a Room" Governance 





*    *    *


CJA's Budget-Related FOIL Requests -- 2016

CJA's Budget-Related FOIL Requests -- 2017


CJA's Budget-Related FOIL Requests -- 2018


The Legislature's "Internal Control Responsibilities"
under Legislative Law Article VI


click here for:




CJA Site Search Engine Search CJA

CJA Homepage  •  Latest News  •  Join Us  •  Site Search


Post Office Box 8101, White Plains, New York 10602
Tel: (914) 421-1200
e-mail: mail@judgewatch.org