From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
King v. Cuomo
New York Court of Appeals
81 N.Y.2d 247 (1993)
Facts
The usual process for a bill to become a law in New York involved two steps: once both houses of the legislature passed the bill, the bill would be sent to the governor. The governor could sign the bill into law or veto the bill. If the governor ignored the bill for over 10 days, the bill would automatically become law. Since 1865, the New York legislature utilized a recall process allowing the legislature to retake a bill from the governor’s desk back to the legislature for further negotiations. The recall process was seen as an alternative to the veto process because the legislature would recall bills that were likely to be vetoed. In 1990 both houses of the legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 9592-A, a bill related to facilities for solid-waste management. The bill was sent to the governor on July 19, 1990. On July 20, the legislature requested the bill be returned, and on July 21, the governor sent the bill back to the legislature. Edgar A. King (plaintiff), the supervisor of the town of Northumberland, filed a lawsuit in state court against the state government (defendant) seeking a declaratory judgment that the recall process was unconstitutional. The New York Supreme Court dismissed the case, and the Appellate Division held that the recall process was constitutional. King appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bellacosa, J.)
Dissent (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
