It's Now Up to Cuomo to Decide on Prosecutorial Conduct Commission
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has until next Wednesday to decide if he'll sign an amended version of a bill that would create a special commission to address complaints of misconduct against the state's prosecutors, who oppose the legislation.
March 18, 2019 at 04:56 PM
5 minute read
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has until next Wednesday to decide if he'll sign an amended version of a bill that would create a special commission to address complaints of misconduct against the state's prosecutors, who oppose the legislation.
His signature would likely mean that litigation over the constitutionality of the legislation would resume after it was paused late last year pending the approval of the amended bill.
The legislation had to be changed after concerns over the constitutionality of a previous iteration were raised by the state attorney general's office and the state's district attorneys last year. The original bill, which passed last June, was signed by Cuomo in August with a promise from lawmakers to amend it this year.
They followed through on that promise in January, but had yet to send the bill to Cuomo for approval. Lawmakers aren't required to immediately send legislation to the governor's office.
A lawsuit against the proposed commission was brought in October by the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, which had long argued that the legislation was unlawful as it was written by state lawmakers. The litigation was against the original version of the bill passed in June, since the Legislature hadn't passed the amended bill at the time.
Then, in December, attorneys for DAASNY, Cuomo, and the leaders of both chambers of the Legislature agreed in a stipulation to put a hold on the litigation and the commission's creation until an amended version of the bill was signed into law.
Lawmakers had, at the time, agreed to consult with DAASNY and keep it updated on the progress of when an amended version of the bill was introduced and passed. The Legislature, instead, introduced the bill on a Friday and passed it the following week without informing DAASNY, according to the association.
Albany County District Attorney David Soares, the current president of DAASNY, criticized lawmakers, at the time, for ignoring the stipulation and said the new version of the bill was still unlawful.
“Unfortunately, the Legislature did not follow the spirit of the stipulation that was signed, which would have given DAASNY visibility into the bill before the votes,” Soares said in January. “In the mutual interest of justice they did not consult DAASNY or our attorneys. Our next step is to amend our original lawsuit and seek an injunction, once again preventing this unconstitutional commission from being created.”
DAASNY has not asked the court for an injunction nor has the group filed a new version of its lawsuit aimed at the constitutionality of the new law. The group said on Monday that it would be consulting with its outside counsel on the litigation before making any moves. It is represented pro bono by Jim Walden and Jacob Gardener from Walden, Macht & Haran in Manhattan.
That action likely wouldn't come until Cuomo has made a decision on the bill, which was formally sent to him by the Legislature on Friday after two months in limbo. It would be unusual for Cuomo to veto the legislation; his office helped negotiate the amended bill last summer before announcing an agreement in August.
The legislation would establish an 11-member commission of defense attorneys, prosecutors, and retired judges to receive and evaluate complaints of misconduct against the state's district attorneys. The attorney general's office would be exempt from scrutiny by the panel, which is modeled after the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Unlike the latter panel, the Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct wouldn't be enshrined in the state constitution, which is one of several constitutional concerns the state's prosecutors had with the legislation.
Some of them were cured in the amended version of the bill. The new legislation, for example, gives Cuomo more appointments to the commission than anyone else. The previous bill gave the Legislature the most appointments, which sparked concerns that lawmakers would be given power over officials in another branch of state government. District attorneys are considered part of the executive branch.
If Cuomo does sign the bill, it will become effective at the beginning of April. It was written to require the commission to be established at the beginning of the first April after it becomes law, so if the Legislature had waited until after the start of next month there would have been a yearlong delay for the panel.
Representatives from Cuomo's office said they will review the legislation now that it's been delivered to his desk. He has until March 27 to make a decision on the bill.
“We will review the amended legislation and process it accordingly,” said Jason Conwall, a spokesman for Cuomo.
READ MORE:
NY Lawmakers Violated Stipulation in Creating Prosecutorial Watchdog, DAs Group Says
NY Lawmakers Approve Constitutional Fix to Law Creating Prosecutorial Watchdog
NY Lawmakers Propose Changes to Bill Setting Up Prosecutorial Watchdog
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250