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

New York State Constitution  & here

New York State Statutes (Consolidated Law)

Senate Rules    Assembly Rules

* * *

Constitutional provisions pertaining to the Budget
Article VII "State Finances"
 
See: Article VII, §§1-7; Article IV,§7

Statutory Provision Pertaining to Division of the Budget:
Executive Law, Article 8

§180 -- Duties; Budget Director

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

------------
State Finance Law §22

Yellow Book -- 2022  pp. 194-213

Yellow Book -- 2021  pp. 198-216

Yellow Book -- 2020 pp. 192-214

Yellow Book -- 2017 pp. 190-211

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

click here for:
Silver v. Pataki
Pataki v. Assembly & Senate

******

Michael Cohen v. New York State
Court of Appeals: 94 NY2d 1 (1999)

"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).

Pines v. State of New York,
Appellate Division, 2nd Dept:  115 A.D.3d 80 (2014)

"The executive budget must be transmitted to the Legislature (see N.Y. Const., art. VII, § 2), and those portions of the appropriation bill which the Legislature does not 'strike out or reduce' immediately become law when passed by both houses (N.Y. Const., art. VII, § 4; see Pataki v. New York State Assembly, 4 N.Y.3d 75, 110, 791 N.Y.S.2d 458, 824 N.E.2d 898)."

cited to, but for the proposition of "rule of necessity", in
the Appellate Division, Third Department's decisions in:

CJA v. Cuomo, 167 AD3rd 1406 (2018)

CJA v. JCOPE, 228 AD3rd 1148 (2024)

Schulz v. State of New York
Court of Appeals decision (1994)

Schulz v. Silver
Appellate Division, 3rd Dept decision (1995)

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

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

Anderson v. Regan
Court of Appeals decision (1981)

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)

---
Law Review articles of Note

"Legislative Oversight of an Executive Budget Process:
Impoundments in New York"
5 Pace L. Rev. 211 (1985) -- Eric Lane

"Reform in New York: The Budget, the Legislature,
and the Governance Process",
67 Albany Law Review 1021 (2004) -- Gerald Benjamin

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 individual legislators 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)

      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)."
           Korn v. Gulotta -- 2nd Dept.

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)"

Bordeleau v. State of New York, 18 NY3d 305 (2011)

Posner v. Rockefeller, 60 Misc. 2d 597 (S.Ct/NY Co 1969)

Posner v. Rockefeller, 26 NY2d 970 (N.Y. 1970)

Posner v Rockefeller, 33 AD2d 314  (3rd Dept. 1970)

Posner v. Levitt, 37 A.D.2d 331(3rd Dept 1971)

Levitt v. Rockefeller, 69 Misc. 2d 337 (1972)

Maybee v State of New York,  4 NY3d 415 (2005)

           cigarette bill

Norwich v. Rockefeller, 70 Misc.2d 923 (1972)

---------------------------

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

Transcript & written statements

search docs

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

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