New York’s Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government will retain its enforcement power the Court of Appeals has ruled, dealing a blow to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s attempt to strip the state ethics board of its power and halt its investigation into his controversial $5 million book deal.
In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled the structure of the commission, known as COELIG, does not violate the separation of powers as designated in the state constitution. Cuomo had argued the structure of the board was unconstitutional because it stripped the governor, the state’s chief elected officer, of the power to investigate ethic concerns and put the power in the hands of COELIG’s unelected board members over which the governor has no control.
“The Act …confers upon an independent agency power to enforce a narrow set of laws, thus mitigating the unique danger of self-regulation,” the Court of Appeals ruling states. “The Act addresses a threat to the legitimacy of government itself with an extraordinary response. While the Act extends very close to the boundary of permissible legislation, it is not ‘intrinsically a constitutional affront to the separation of powers doctrine’ (Cohen v State, 94 NY2d 1, 15 [1999]). We therefore conclude that the Act is not unconstitutional in every conceivable application.”
Cuomo, who is now considering a run for New York City mayor, filed a lawsuit two years ago to stop COELIG from seeking proceeds from his pandemic memoir, "American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic." A prior iteration of the ethics commission had approved the governor writing the book on condition state resources were not used. It was later revealed many of Cuomo’s top staff members contributed to the book. (Cuomo claimed this work was done on a volunteer basis.)
“Experience confirms that democracy cannot thrive and institutions cannot function where the public perceives that government actors use their power to serve their personal interests rather than those of their constituents,” the ruling states.
Two lower courts had ruled in Cuomo’s favor. He intends to ask for reconsideration.
Cuomo’s lucrative book deal came in the throes of the pandemic and was the opportunity to showcase his leadership skills during a crisis. At the time, he was providing daily televised COVID updates that were widely watched.
The dissenting opinion vehemently opposed the majority’s ruling, calling COELIG “a wolf ‘clad, so to speak, in sheep’s closing.’” Harris Beach Murtha will continue to provide further updates on this ruling, including an analysis of the dissenting opinion and any potential appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
