NY State DAs Move to Block Creation of Prosecutorial Conduct Watchdog
The new filing comes after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an amended version of legislation into law last Wednesday that would create the Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct, despite the expected constitutional challenge to the legislation from the state's prosecutors.
April 01, 2019 at 02:35 PM
6 minute read
The state's district attorneys, on Monday, moved to block the creation of a new commission that would be tasked with reviewing complaints of misconduct specifically against the state's prosecutors, who argued that the legislation passed to create the panel is unconstitutional.
The new filing from the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York comes after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law last week that would create the Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct, despite the expected constitutional challenge.
It's not the first time the group has moved to challenge the legislation; it filed a lawsuit last year against a previous version of the bill that was ultimately amended by lawmakers because of its questionable constitutionality.
But Albany County District Attorney David Soares, the current president of DAASNY, said Monday that the new version of the law still contains several flaws that should be assessed in court before it's enforced.
“As with the prior bill, the amended version suffers from most of the same constitutional infirmities, and impermissibly intrudes on core law enforcement functions,” Soares said. “In essence, the new bill is just another political stunt, with no hope of surviving judicial scrutiny. Although we offered to work together with the Legislature on a lawful set of reforms, our offer fell on deaf ears.”
The revived challenge to the commission wasn't unexpected. DAASNY has been critical of the amended legislation since lawmakers first introduced and passed it in January. There were a few changes to the bill, compared to the previous version, but many of the constitutional flaws identified in last year's iteration were still included.
DAASNY has argued against the commission's constitutionality for years now, but those concerns weren't realized until lawmakers approved legislation to create the panel last June. The state attorney general's office, at the time, told Cuomo that the bill, as written, was unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge in court.
The Cuomo administration agreed to work with lawmakers on changes to the legislation that could cure some of those constitutional flaws. He agreed to sign the first version of the bill with a promise from lawmakers to amend it in January. The initial bill prevented the commission from being created in the meantime.
Lawmakers followed through on that promise by introducing and passing an amended version of the legislation in January. But that version of the bill, which was not revealed until days before it passed, still contained many of the same constitutional flaws previously identified, DAASNY claimed.
The group held off on reviving its legal challenge against the legislation until it was signed into law by Cuomo last week. It moved for a preliminary injunction against the panel's creation on Monday and also filed an amended version of its lawsuit against the commission.
DAASNY is represented pro bono in the litigation by Jim Walden and Jacob Gardener from Walden, Macht & Haran in Manhattan. They said in a statement that the legislation was designed by lawmakers to “score cheap political points,” despite its alleged lack of constitutionality.
“In sad truth, the fact that the legislature passed a bill that is patently unconstitutional [and] defied the Governor's instruction to correct it … betrays the legislature's true interest here: to score cheap political points with a facially invalid bill while vilifying the overwhelming majority of dedicated, ethical and hard-working District Attorneys across the state and, at the same time, providing false hope to actual victims of misconduct that this bill could afford relief,” Walden and Gardener said in a joint statement.
They've identified seven different provisions of the legislation that they allege are contradictory to the state constitution. They're nearly identical to the flaws identified by DAASNY in the previous version of the legislation. The New York Law Journal has previously reported on the group's concerns over the amended version of the bill approved by Cuomo last week.
Among them is an argument that the commission violates the separation of powers doctrine of the state constitution because the panel would be composed of individuals appointed by each branch of state government. That would improperly allow other branches of state government to be involved with disciplining the state's district attorneys, who are considered part of the executive branch, DAASNY has claimed.
They've also argued that the commission could unconstitutionally interfere with the work of the state's district attorneys, who may be less willing to pursue difficult prosecutions out of concerns that their operations would be under the scrutiny of a hybrid panel.
Their other concerns deal with oversight of the commission, how it would expand the power of certain judicial officers beyond what's prescribed in the state constitution, and allegedly deny due process and equal protection rights to the state's prosecutors.
The legislation signed by Cuomo last week would allow himself, members of the Legislature, and Chief Judge Janet DiFiore to appoint certain individuals to an 11-member panel that would be tasked with reviewing complaints of misconduct against the state's prosecutors. Supporters of the commission have argued that it would provide stronger oversight over the state's district attorneys, and prevent wrongful convictions.
Cuomo wrote in a memo approving the bill last week that he supported the legislation, but acknowledged that constitutional flaws remained in the bill. He blamed the Legislature for sending him a bill that was potentially problematic.
“Previously unidentified infirmities — including constitutional separation of powers concerns with both the executive and judiciary — that leave this law vulnerable to legal attack have come into sharp focus with the passage of time and attention to the ongoing legal challenge,” Cuomo wrote. “Still, the Legislature remains unconvinced that changes recommended by the Executive are necessary and determined it best to deliver the bill unchanged.”
READ MORE:
Cuomo Approves Prosecutorial Conduct Watchdog, Despite Likely Constitutional Challenge
District Attorneys Urge Cuomo to Veto Prosecutorial Conduct Watchdog Bill
Defenders, Criminal Justice Reformers Call on Cuomo to Approve 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 AllRelaxing 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
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
- 2Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 3What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 4Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 5Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
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