From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Evans v. Carey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 16, 1976
359 N.E.2d 983 (N.Y. 1976)

Summary

In Evans, however, although, as here, an executive order was involved, no contention was made that a statute, rather than an executive order, was necessary to compel the desired financial disclosure or prohibit the described activities.

Summary of this case from Rapp v. Carey

Opinion

Argued November 17, 1976

Decided December 16, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, JOSEPH S. MATTINA, J.

Charles R. Sandler and Ronald L. Jaros for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Michael F. Colligan and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division and its upholding of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 10 (9 N.Y.CRR 3.10). In such affirmance we, as did the Appellate Division, distinguish Griswold v Connecticut ( 381 U.S. 479), a case which recognized and broadly delineated a right to privacy but in a vastly different situation. Rather than rely on such cases as California Bankers Assn. v Shultz ( 416 U.S. 21), United States v Miller ( 425 U.S. 434), Fisher v United States ( 425 U.S. 391), and Buckley v Valeo ( 424 U.S. 1), each of which involves an unsuccessful challenge to a governmental requirement or governmental demand directing a third party to maintain records or disclose information, we rest instead on the authority of cases such as United Public Workers v Mitchell ( 330 U.S. 75), Civil Serv. Comm. v Letter Carriers ( 413 U.S. 548), Broadrick v Oklahoma ( 413 U.S. 601), and Illinois State Employees Assn. v Walker ( 57 Ill.2d 512, cert den sub nom. Troopers Lodge No. 41 v Walker, 419 U.S. 1058) where, as here, the rights and interests of government employees, as citizens, were balanced against the rights and interests of the government, as employer. The Executive Order requiring financial disclosure was designed to eliminate inefficiency and deter official corruption, significant public interests, and does not infringe upon individual employees' constitutional rights.

Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER and COOKE concur;


Although the opinion of Mr. Presiding Justice JOHN MARSH at the Appellate Division cogently justifies on constitutional grounds a statute requiring financial disclosures by public employees and officers, it does not address itself to whether a statute, as distinguished from an "executive order", is required to accomplish such objective. But appellants have never contended otherwise and, indeed, none of the parties has briefed that question. Hence, we do not reach it.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Evans v. Carey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 16, 1976
359 N.E.2d 983 (N.Y. 1976)

In Evans, however, although, as here, an executive order was involved, no contention was made that a statute, rather than an executive order, was necessary to compel the desired financial disclosure or prohibit the described activities.

Summary of this case from Rapp v. Carey

In Evans v Carey (40 N.Y.2d 1008, supra), the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 10 of the State of New York (9 NYCRR 3.10), which was a directive that imposed financial disclosure requirements substantially similar to those imposed by Public Officers Law § 73-a, on certain employees of the Executive Branch.

Summary of this case from Watkins v. State Ethics Commn
Case details for

Evans v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:JAMES T. EVANS et al., Appellants, v. HUGH L. CAREY, as Governor of the…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 16, 1976

Citations

359 N.E.2d 983 (N.Y. 1976)
359 N.E.2d 983
391 N.Y.S.2d 393

Citing Cases

Watkins v. State Ethics Commn

(Kaplan v Board of Educ., supra.) To adequately safeguard those privacy interests implicated by public…

Rapp v. Carey

Special Term granted the requested relief, and a unanimous Appellate Division affirmed. Not at issue is the…