In a decision of major interest to the state at large – and about which everyone is apparently aware through the public media – a divided Court of Appeals upholds the governor’s designation of a lieutenant governor to fill the void the governor himself left when he stepped into the governorship after his predecessor resigned. The governor acted under Public Officers Law § 43, which permits him to fill any elective office vacated without an elected replacement. The majority, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, finds the statute in point, and applicable; the dissent, in an opinion by Judge Pigott, finds otherwise because in its view the state constitution itself, in Article IV, § 6, preemptively provides for replacement of a lieutenant governor by election only. Skelos v. Paterson, 13 N.Y.3d 141, .... N.Y.S.2d .... (22 Sept. 2009; 4-3 decision).
The suit was by a senator. It posed an issue of his standing to challenge the appointment, but in order to get to the merits because the Court deemed prompt resolution of the issue mandatory as a matter of pressing public interest (the case got preferences all along the way), the Court assumes the standing, gets to the merits and, albeit by division, resolves them.
The governor’s appointee, Richard Ravitch, about whom all apparently think highly, did not exercise the office until this decision confirmed his right to.
The two opinions, juxtaposing and resolving constitutional as well as statutory provisions, tracing background, contrasting the federal scene, etc., make interesting reading, but mainly for historians. For the bar in general, the issues in the case are not likely to arise often in their practice. So, wishing all sides good luck, including of course the new lieutenant governor, we leave all interested members to read the opinions and revel – or suffer, as their convictions may dictate.
