separation of powers doctrine in New York

2026The majority concluded that the Host Family Home program fell within OCFS' broad authority to "board out" children and provide preventive services to keep children out of the foster care system, and that OCFS's use of that authority did not contravene the separation of powers doctrine articulated in Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d 1 [1987]).

2026The majority concluded that the Host Family Home program fell within OCFS' broad authority to "board out" children and provide preventive services to keep children out of the foster care system, and that OCFS's use of that authority did not contravene the separation of powers doctrine articulated in Boreali v Axelrod ( 71 NY2d 1 [1987]).

2022RESPONDENTS' AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE CHALLENGED REGULATION The separation of powers doctrine has been described as the "bedrock" of our State's system of justice, with three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions ( Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv. , 27 NY3d 174, 178 [2016]; Matter of Maron v Silver , 14 NY3d 230, 258 [2010]).

2022Under the separation of powers doctrine, one branch of government may not “dominat[e] or interfer[e] with the functioning of another coequal branch” (Maron, 14 NY3d at 244 ).

2022RESPONDENTS' AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE CHALLENGED REGULATION The separation of powers doctrine has been described as the "bedrock" of our State's system of justice, with three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions ( Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv. , 27 NY3d 174, 178 [2016]; Matter of Maron v Silver , 14 NY3d 230, 258 [2010]).

2022Respondents' Authority to Adopt the Challenged Regulation The separation of powers doctrine has been described as the "bedrock" of our State's system of justice, with three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions ( Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv. , 27 NY3d 174 , 178 [2016]; Matter of Maron v Silver , 14 {**206 AD3d at 102} NY3d 230 , 258 [2010]).

2025We are guided here by "this Court's long-standing and steadfast refusal to construe the separation of powers doctrine in a vacuum" ( Bourquin v Cuomo , 85 NY2d 781, 785 [1995]).

2025We are guided here by "this Court's long-standing and steadfast refusal to construe the separation of powers doctrine in a vacuum" ( Bourquin v Cuomo , 85 NY2d 781, 785 [1995]).

2025While the Act extends very close to the boundary of permissible legislation, it is not "intrinsically a constitutional affront to the separation of powers doctrine" [*2]( Cohen v State , 94 NY2d 1, 15 [1999]).

2025While the Act extends very close to the boundary of permissible legislation, it is not "intrinsically a constitutional affront to the separation of powers doctrine" [*2]( Cohen v State , 94 NY2d 1, 15 [1999]).

2013(Id. at 786.) In this vein, the Court of Appeals stated that it was following the policy set forth in Clark v Cuomo ( 66 NY2d 185 [1985]), which upheld against a separation of powers challenge an executive order establishing a Voter Registration Task Force with access to state agencies in distributing its material.

2011“While the doctrine of separation of powers does not require the maintenance of three airtight departments of government, it does require that no one branch be allowed to arrogate unto itself powers residing entirely in another branch” (id. at 356 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see also Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185, 189 [1985]).

2025If an agency promulgates a rule beyond the power it was granted by the [L]egislature, it usurps the legislative role and violates the doctrine of separation of powers" ( Matter of LeadingAge N.Y., Inc. v Shah , 32 NY3d 249 , 259-260 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2025As SED did not exceed its regulatory policymaking authority and was not engaged in improper legislating ( see Education Law § 305 [1]), Supreme Court erred in concluding that SED violated the separation of powers doctrine ( see Matter of LeadingAge N.Y., Inc. v Shah , 32 NY3d at 266-267; Greater N.Y.

2013Indeed, one year later, in Matter of Campagna v Shaffer ( 73 NY2d 237, 243 [1989]), the Court explained that “[a] key feature of [the Boreali] case . . . was that the Legislature had never articulated a policy regarding . . . public smoking.” Subsequently, the courts have consistently held that so long as an action taken by an administrative agency is consistent with the policies contemplated by the legislature, the action taken will survive constitutional scrutiny under the doctrine of separation of powers (see e.g.

2013Indeed, one year later, in Matter of Campagna v Shaffer ( 73 NY2d 237, 243 [1989]), the Court explained that “[a] key feature of [the Boreali] case . . . was that the Legislature had never articulated a policy regarding . . . public smoking.” Subsequently, the courts have consistently held that so long as an action taken by an administrative agency is consistent with the policies contemplated by the legislature, the action taken will survive constitutional scrutiny under the doctrine of separation of powers (see e.g.

2009To the extent that plaintiffs claim that the Department violated the separation of powers doctrine by usurping the Legislature’s authority, we are satisfied that the Department did not “ ‘go beyond stated legislative policy and prescribe a remedial device not embraced by the policy’ ” (Matter of Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy v Cuomo, 78 NY2d 398 , 410 [1991], quoting Matter of Broidrick v Lindsay, 39 NY2d 641, 645-646 [1976]).

1996Because PLAs do not genetically constitute policymaking, because some freedom and flexibility have been delegated to public benefit corporations, and because the particular interests embodied in New York’s competitive bidding statutes have long been clearly articulated as standards for agency action, the separation of powers doctrine is not implicated here (dissenting opn, at 91; see, Matter of Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy v Cuomo, 78 NY2d 398, 410 ). * In sum, the Court’s test neither rubber-stamps nor rejects PLAs wholesale.

2024It is not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for this Court to apply a new law "in reviewing judgments still on appeal," such as this one ( see Plaut v Spendthrift Farm, Inc ., 514 US 211, 226 [1995]; see also Hernandez-Rodriguez v Pasquarell , 118 F3d 1034, 1042 [5th Cir1997]["unquestionably the judiciary must generally apply changes in the law to cases pending on appeal"]).

2024It is not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for this Court to apply a new law "in reviewing judgments still on appeal," such as this one ( see Plaut v Spendthrift Farm, Inc ., 514 US 211, 226 [1995]; see also Hernandez-Rodriguez v Pasquarell , 118 F3d 1034, 1042 [5th Cir1997]["unquestionably the judiciary must generally apply changes in the law to cases pending on appeal"]).

2025Taxi Assn. v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. , 25 NY3d 600, 613 [2015]).

2018Taxi Assn. v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. , 25 NY3d 600, 608 [2015]).

2014Lehner, J.) granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the separation of powers claim to the extent of declaring that “defendants, through the practice of linkage, have unconstitutionally abused their power” and directed defendants to, within 90 days, “remedy such abuse” by making a good-faith adjustment to judicial compensation “to reflect the increase in the cost of living since . . . 1998, with an appropriate provision for retroactivity” (Larabee v Governor of State of N.Y., 20 Misc 3d 866, 878 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008], affd 65 AD3d 74 [1st Dept 2009], mod sub nom.

2014Lehner, J.) granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the separation of powers claim to the extent of declaring that "defendants, through the practice of linkage, have unconstitutionally abused their power" and directed defendants to, within 90 days, "remedy such abuse" by making a good-faith adjustment to judicial compensation "to reflect the increase in the cost of living since . . . 1998, with an appropriate provision for retroactivity" ( Larabee v Governor of State of N.Y. , 20 Misc 3d 866, 878 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008], affd 65 AD3d 74 [1st Dept 2009], mod sub nom.

2009To the extent that plaintiffs claim that the Department violated the separation of powers doctrine by usurping the Legislature’s authority, we are satisfied that the Department did not “ ‘go beyond stated legislative policy and prescribe a remedial device not embraced by the policy’ ” (Matter of Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy v Cuomo, 78 NY2d 398 , 410 [1991], quoting Matter of Broidrick v Lindsay, 39 NY2d 641, 645-646 [1976]).

1995In determining whether executive action crosses the line and constitutes an inappropriate assumption of legislative power, the Court of Appeals has looked to whether the executive action "create[s] a different policy, not embraced in the legislation” or whether the executive action is in fact inconsistent with existing State law (Matter of Broidrick v Lindsay, 39 NY2d 641, 646-648 ; see also, Matter of Citizens For Orderly Energy Policy v Cuomo, 78 NY2d 398, 410 ["only executive acts inconsistent with or arrogative of the Legislature’s prerogatives violate the separation of powers doctrine”]).

2025Implicitly, the separation of powers doctrine provides "that each branch is to exercise power within a given sphere of authority" ( Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d 801, 821 ).

2008(Under 21, Catholic Home Bur. for Dependent Children v City of New York, 65 NY2d 344 , 355 [1985]; see NY Const arts III [legislative power], IV [executive power], VI [judicial power]; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d at 821 .) The separation of powers doctrine requires not that each branch of government be insulated from the others, but only that no one branch arrogate to itself the powers conferred exclusively on another branch.

2007(Matter of New York State Health Facilities Assn. v Axelrod, 77 NY2d 340 [1991].) That the Legislature cannot delegate all of its lawmaking power to an administrative agency is a principle firmly rooted in the system of government (Matter of Nicholas v Kahn, 47 NY2d 24 [1979]), but it is applied with the “utmost reluctance.” (Boreali at 9 .) In addition, the separation of powers doctrine does not divide the branches into watertight compartments, and the lines of demarcation for the legislative and executive branches cannot be easily drawn.

1991Because the central issue is whether the Governor acted in excess of his lawfully delegated authority, the decision necessarily has serious implications for the formulation and implementation of policy in State government and the doctrine of separation of powers ( see, e.g. , Matter of Campagna v Shaffer , 73 N.Y.2d 237, 242 ; Boreali v Axelrod , 71 N.Y.2d 1, 14 ; Under 21, Catholic Home Bur. for Dependent Children v City of New York , 65 N.Y.2d 344 ; Clark v Cuomo , 66 N.Y.2d 185, 189 ; Matter of Nicholas v Kahn , 47 N.Y.2d 24, 30 ; Rapp v Carey , 44 N.Y.2d 157 , 163; Matter of Broidrick v Li

2013It derives its power to establish rules and regulations directly and solely from the legislature, in this case, the City Council (Under 21, Catholic Home Bur. for Dependent Children v City of New York, 65 NY2d 344 , 356 [1985]; see also Subcontractors Trade Assn. v Koch, 62 NY2d 422 [1984]). 3 The separation of powers doctrine of the State Constitution establishes the boundaries between actions of the legislature and an administrative agency.

2013It derives its power to establish rules and regulations directly and solely from the legislature, in this case, the City Council (Under 21, Catholic Home Bur. for Dependent Children v City of New York, 65 NY2d 344 , 356 [1985]; see also Subcontractors Trade Assn. v Koch, 62 NY2d 422 [1984]). 3 The separation of powers doctrine of the State Constitution establishes the boundaries between actions of the legislature and an administrative agency.

2025As such, the Supreme Court also should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for the imposition of a $1,000 forfeiture against the defendant pursuant to CPLR 7003(c) and granted that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint on that basis, and should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for a judgment declaring that the CPLR 7003(c) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine ( see Matter of Catanise v Town of Fayette , 1

2025As such, the Supreme Court also should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for the imposition of a $1,000 forfeiture against the defendant pursuant to CPLR 7003(c) and granted that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint on that basis, and should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for a judgment declaring that the CPLR 7003(c) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine ( see Matter of Catanise v Town of Fayette , 1

2025As a third pillar of support, the majority leans heavily on the elasticity and "flexibility" of the separation of powers doctrine, selectively citing to Chief Judge Cardozo's statement that "[t]he exigencies of government have made it necessary to relax a mere doctrinaire adherence to a principle so flexible and practical, so largely a matter of sensible approximation, as that of the separation of powers" ( see Matter of Richardson , 247 NY 401, 410 [1928]; majority op at 13).

2025As a third pillar of support, the majority leans heavily on the elasticity and "flexibility" of the separation of powers doctrine, selectively citing to Chief Judge Cardozo's statement that "[t]he exigencies of government have made it necessary to relax a mere doctrinaire adherence to a principle so flexible and practical, so largely a matter of sensible approximation, as that of the separation of powers" ( see Matter of Richardson , 247 NY 401, 410 [1928]; majority op at 13).

2019The Supreme Court also rejected the President's argument that the Separation of Powers doctrine placed limits on the federal judiciary's authority to interfere with the executive branch because the President's role in American society is unique and his duties so important that he must "devote his undivided time and attention to his public duties" ( id. at 697).

2019The separation of powers doctrine precludes one branch of the federal government from performing a function of another branch or significantly impairing another branch's ability to perform its function ( 520 US at 701 ).

2012Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was denied his rights to due process and equal protection when the People prosecuted him for predatory sexual assault against a child rather than criminal sexual act in the first degree, and that the People also thereby violated the separation of powers clause of the United States Constitution (see generally People v Jackson, 71 AD3d 1457, 1458 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; People v Schaurer, 32 AD3d 1241 [2006]).

2012Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was denied his rights to due process and equal protection when the People prosecuted him for predatory sexual assault against a child rather than criminal sexual act in the first degree, and that the People also thereby violated the separation of powers clause of the United States Constitution (see generally People v Jackson, 71 AD3d 1457, 1458 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 888 [2010]; People v Schaurer, 32 AD3d 1241 [2006]).

2019Among them is the principle—grounded in the doctrine of separation of powers—that a court's role is to interpret statutes and regulations based on their plain meaning and to consider only the arguments and record before it ( see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 463 [2000]; Matter of Kevin M. , 136 AD3d 826 [2016]. " '[I]t is not for the courts to correct supposed errors, omissions or defects in legislation' " ( Matter of Kevin M. , 136 AD3d at 827 , quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 73, Comment at 147-148 [1971 ed.]; see Bright Homes, Inc. v Wright , 8 NY2d 157 [196

2008“Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts may not legislate (.Bright Homes v Wright, 8 NY2d 157, 162 ; Matter of Metropolitan Life Ins.

1987In such cases, we have had less difficulty striking down executive fiats under the separation of powers doctrine, presumably because the challenged actions depended wholly on the executives’ implied authority to enforce the laws, rather than on an express legislative delegation of authority (Matter of Nicholas v Kahn, 47 NY2d 24, 33, n 2; see, e.g., Under 21 v City of New York, 65 NY2d 344; Subcontractors Trade Assn. v Koch, 62 NY2d 422; Rapp v Carey, 44 NY2d 157 , 163; Matter of Broidrick v Lindsay, 39 NY2d 641 ; cf., Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185 ; see also, Youngstown Co. v Sawyer, 343 US 579

1984Such a philosophy does injustice to the doctrine of separation of powers (Youngstown Co. v Sawyer, 343 US 579 ).

2018Petitioners maintained that the Board's adoption of those rules{**31 NY3d at 607} exceeded its regulatory authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

2018However, if the{**31 NY3d at 617} Boreali factors indicate that the agency has been empowered to regulate the matter in question, the separation of powers analysis goes no farther in reviewing the agency's methods.