Section 71 - Attorney-general authorized to appear in cases involving the constitutionality of an act of the legislature, or a rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto

4 Citing briefs

  1. In the Matter of Penny Mintz,, Appellant,v.The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent, Rachel Lavine, Intervenor-Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    The court lacks discretion to excuse this failure. N.Y. Exec. L. § 71(3). Petitioner’s failure to provide such notice is fatal to this claim.

  2. Expressions Hair Design et al v. Schneiderman

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 26 MOTION to Dismiss., 11 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document

    Filed July 12, 2013

    2 See, e.g., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 347 (antitrust violations); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 358 (securities fraud violations); N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(2) (when required by governor); N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(3) (when requested by agency charged with executing criminal statute in question); N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(10) (anti-discrimination laws); N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(13) (perjury committed in course of attorney general’s investigation). 3 It is true that the attorney general has a duty to defend the constitutionality of challenged state statutes, N.Y. Exec. Law § 71, and to defend actions in which the state is ‘interested,’ N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(1). But in those cases “the Attorney General does so, not as an adverse party, but as a representative of the State’s interest in asserting the validity of its statutes.”

  3. In the Matter of Penny Mintz,, Appellant,v.The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent, Rachel Lavine, Intervenor-Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    17 NY Election Law § 16-102(2) 17 passimNY Election Law § 2-102(4) passimNY Election Law § 6-132(1) 18NY Election Law § 6-132(3). 12, 13NY Election Law § 6-134 NY Election Law § 6-134(10) 13 NY Executive Law § 71 17 11, 12NY Ballot Access Law of 1996 NY Election Reform Act of 1992 11, 12 v Intervenor-Respondent Rachel Lavine, currently the Female Member of the State Committee for the 66th Assembly District (“Ms. Lavine” or “Intervenor”), respectfully submits this brief in opposition to the appeal filed by Petitioner/Candidate-Appellant Penny Mintz (“Ms. Mintz” or “Appellant”) from the Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the Honorable Carol R. Edmead, dated August 15, 2018, and entered on August 17, 2018, dismissing the Petition and affirming the Board of Elections’ decision that Appellant’s designating petition is invalid and that her name should not appear on the ballot for the September 13, 2018 primary election (the “Order”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In her brief to this Court, Appellant makes four arguments for why the Order should be reversed.

  4. Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, et al., Respondents, The Livery Roundtable, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Respondents,v.Michael R. Bloomberg,, et al., Appellants, Livery Base Owners Inc., et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

    Brief

    Filed April 24, 2013

    IX, § 1 .............................................................................. 33 N.Y. Const. of 1963, art. IX, § 2 ................................................................. 33, 34, 65 N.Y. Exec. Law § 71 .................................................................................................. 2 N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 181 ............................................................................. passim N.Y. Stat.