Evans v. Carey

New York Court of Appeals

Evans v. Carey

359 N.E.2d 983, 40 N.Y.2d 1008, 391 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3198

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 359 N.E.2d 983 (Evans v. Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Carey, 359 N.E.2d 983, 40 N.Y.2d 1008, 391 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3198 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division and its upholding of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 10 (9 NYCRR 3.10). In such affirmance we, as did the Appellate Division, distinguish Griswold v Connecticut (381 US 479), a case which recognized and broadly delineated a right to privacy but in a vastly different situation. Rather than rely on such cases as California Bankers Assn. v Shultz (416 US 21), United States v Miller (425 US 434), Fisher v United States (425 US 391), and Buckley v Valeo (424 US 1), each of which involves an unsuccessful challenge to a governmental requirement or governmental demand directing a third party to maintain records or disclose information, we rest instead on the authority of cases such as United Public [1009]*1009Workers v Mitchell (330 US 75), Civil Serv. Comm. v Letter Carriers (413 US 548), Broadrick v Oklahoma (413 US 601), and Illinois State Employees Assn. v Walker (57 Ill 2d 512, cert den sub nom. Troopers Lodge No. 41 v Walker, 419 US 1058) where, as here, the rights and interests of government employees, as citizens, were balanced against the rights and interests of the government, as employer. The Executive Order requiring financial disclosure was designed to eliminate inefficiency and deter official corruption, significant public interests, and does not infringe upon individual employees! constitutional rights.

Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur; Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg concur in the following memorandum: Although the opinion of Mr. Presiding Justice John Marsh at the Appellate Division cogently justifies on constitutional grounds a statute requiring financial disclosures by public employees and officers, it does not address itself to whether a statute, as distinguished from an "executive order”, is required to accomplish such objective. But appellants have never contended otherwise and, indeed, none of the parties has briefed that question. Hence, we do not reach it.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division and its upholding of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 10 (9 NYCRR 3.10). In such affirmance we, as did the Appellate Division, distinguish Griswold v Connecticut (381 US 479), a case which recognized and broadly delineated a right to privacy but in a vastly different situation. Rather than rely on such cases as California Bankers Assn. v Shultz (416 US 21), United States v Miller (425 US 434), Fisher v United States (425 US 391), and Buckley v Valeo (424 US 1), each of which involves an unsuccessful challenge to a governmental requirement or governmental demand directing a third party to maintain records or disclose information, we rest instead on the authority of cases such as United Public [1009]*1009Workers v Mitchell (330 US 75), Civil Serv. Comm. v Letter Carriers (413 US 548), Broadrick v Oklahoma (413 US 601), and Illinois State Employees Assn. v Walker (57 Ill 2d 512, cert den sub nom. Troopers Lodge No. 41 v Walker, 419 US 1058) where, as here, the rights and interests of government employees, as citizens, were balanced against the rights and interests of the government, as employer. The Executive Order requiring financial disclosure was designed to eliminate inefficiency and deter official corruption, significant public interests, and does not infringe upon individual employees! constitutional rights.

Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur; Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg concur in the following memorandum: Although the opinion of Mr. Presiding Justice John Marsh at the Appellate Division cogently justifies on constitutional grounds a statute requiring financial disclosures by public employees and officers, it does not address itself to whether a statute, as distinguished from an "executive order”, is required to accomplish such objective. But appellants have never contended otherwise and, indeed, none of the parties has briefed that question. Hence, we do not reach it.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 N.E.2d 983, 40 N.Y.2d 1008, 391 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-carey-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack