Previous Post
Next Post

New York Court of Appeals courtesy

As expected, the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division has denied a motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the SAFE Act. The denial came in the case that attacks the Act because it was rushed to a vote under the governor’s ‘message of necessity’ rather than after the usual 3-day cooling off period. This is part of the byzantine, but necessary path the case must take to get to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Time, and the wheels of justice march on. Make the jump for a press release from We the People of New York . . .

ALBANY, NEW YORK, March 28, 2013 – – Today the N.Y. State Supreme Court Appellate Division – Third Department issued a Decision on the Motion to prohibit the state from taking any action in furtherance of the NY SAFE ACT. Had the Court granted the Motion, the Legislature would not have been able to adopt the Budget because in its present form it contains a line item for the Governor to spend $36 million dollars implementing the SAFE ACT.

While the Court did not give the requested preliminary injunction, they did agree to expedite the Appeal and will provide a decision on the constitutionality of the SAFE ACT in May.

“We are required to follow the Judicial process, working our way up through the lower Courts who obviously feel constrained by a 2005 decision from the highest Court, the Court of Appeals. It was there decided in 2005 in a case called Maybee v. State concerning the sale of cigarettes (!) that “the sufficiency of the Governor’s Message of Necessity is beyond judicial review,” said Schulz.  “We pray the Appellate Court, in its final determination, will see the intolerable state of affairs and agree that the Courts cannot finesse the Three Day Rule out of the Constitution, thereby giving license to the Governor and Legislature to pass every Bill with a Message of Necessity.  The People of this State expect the facts in any Message of Necessity to be true and reasonable.  There has to be a legitimate, proven need for speed for the constitutional requirements to be satisfied. “

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This is expected, and quite frankly I don’t see Schultz having any meaningful effect on the issues presented–all that the trial court ruled on was the judiciability of the statement of emergency, not the substativie issues raised by Tresmond. Where are we at with respect to the latter, RF?

  2. I find it incredible that anything concerning the sale of cigarettes could be time-sensitive enough to require a Message of Necessity. I think the statute that allows for the Message of Necessity practice should be subject to a three-strikes rule, to wit: If you use it improperly three times, for things that are, to a reasonable person, clearly not time-sensitive, you should lose the ability to use the Message of Necessity for the remainder of your term in office.

  3. The whole f***king Federal government and liberal state governments need to be eradicated, there is only one way to to fix it. That is why we need what they don’t want us to have.

  4. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. “We can’t
    possibly make a ruling on whether something qualifies as an
    emergency. But just because we won’t actual check to okay
    the legality of pushing legislation through via emergency
    measures totally doesn’t mean the government will purposely
    use it to ram through laws.”

    Something tells me that either the judge missed the day that
    checks and balances was covered, or more likely he’s in the
    bag for Cuomo and company.

    • Checks and balances are still in effect. The only issue raised is whether there can be a challenge to the message of necessity. Separate and apart from that there is the issue of the law tha’s been forced through–which is what Tresmnond is working on. There is a difference between a review of the law making process and the review of the sausage that comes out at the end of lit.

      • I realize that the process for the SAFE acts creation
        was technically legal, but for the court here or in
        Maybee v. State to say they can’t hear a case based
        on the questioned validity of emergency measures
        just seems like a cop out. Not an unexpected ruling

  5. A few days late with this post, but…

    I think that anything that short-circuits the deliberations on a proposed law like the ‘message of necessity’ should require a sunset period wherein the law fails to take effect if it isn’t re-approved in a second vote a set time later, or the requirement for a vote of no confidence for the governor. “Wait, he fed us a pile of crap? Toss him!”

    It’d be one thing to use a message of necessity to say ‘There’s a one-year ban on (potential danger), while we debate’ or the urgent channeling of funds to fix a dam or something that’s a real need-it-today urgent need.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here