Opinion
Argued October 16, 1996
Decided November 14, 1996
APPEAL, on constitutional grounds, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered February 22, 1996, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Robert C. Williams, J.), entered in Albany County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granting a motion by respondents to dismiss the petition which sought to annul a determination of respondent Speaker of the State Assembly that a home rule message was required before a bill providing for the secession of the Borough of Staten Island from the City of New York could be reported out of the Cities Committee, and dismissing the petition with prejudice.
Assembly Bill No. 9662, introduced in 1994, provided for the secession of the Borough of Staten Island from the City of New York. Respondent home rule counsel of the State Assembly determined that a home rule message from the City of New York was required before the bill could be reported out of the Cities Committee. Respondent Speaker of the Assembly, who has been authorized by the Assembly to make home rule determinations on its behalf, adopted the determination of the home rule counsel and petitioners were accordingly notified. Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking to annul respondents' determination as unconstitutional. Respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds that, inter alia, the proceeding was barred by the Speech or Debate Clause (NY Const, art III, § 11) and, alternatively, that petitioners' claims were not justiciable. Petitioners cross-moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court dismissed the petition with prejudice, as absolutely barred by the Speech or Debate Clause; the court did not reach the issue of justiciability.
The Appellate Division concluded that home rule determinations of the type at issue were part and parcel of the legislative process and are routinely made by the Speaker of the Assembly; that the Speaker's decision to require a home rule message for the Secession Bill was an integral part of the legislative process, and thus a legislative act for which respondents were immune by virtue of the Speech or Debate Clause; that the Speech or Debate Clause protection does not begin with the onset of committee deliberations since many important legislative activities entitled to Speech or Debate Clause immunity, including the drafting of bills and the reference of bills to committee, occur prior to this stage of the legislative process; that there was no merit to petitioners' argument that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield erroneous determinations by legislators and their staffs since the privilege would be virtually worthless if courts determining its applicability had to carefully examine the acts ostensibly shielded; that because judgments of legality or constitutionality obviously involve "questioning" of legislative acts, courts may not strip acts taken in the legislative process of their constitutional immunity by finding that the acts are substantively illegal or unconstitutional; that there was no support in the record for petitioners' argument that the challenged determination was not made in conformance with the accepted procedure; that even if a violation of the Assembly's rules were demonstrated, such violation would not abrogate Speech or Debate Clause immunity; and that judicial review must be limited to determining whether the action constitutes a legitimate legislative activity, and once a determination is made that the action is within the purview of legitimate legislative activity, the court's review must end.
Robert A. Straniere and Eric N. Vitaliano, Staten Island, pro se, and Raymond A. Fasano, Staten Island, for Robert A. Straniere and another, appellants.
Weil, Gotshal Manges, L.L.P., New York City (Steven Alan Reiss, David Jason Lender and Jacqueline Haberfeld of counsel), for respondents.
Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 A.D.2d 80, affirmed.
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Thomas E. Mercure at the Appellate Division ( 218 A.D.2d 80).
Concur: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK.