Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE of New York, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, upon review of the December 28, 1998 order of Judicial Hearing Officer Albert Blinder, granted, in part, defendants' application for a protective order barring plaintiffs from seeking disclosure respecting contacts between Ruth Henahan and executive and legislative officials and staff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly determined that Ms. Henahan was entitled to invoke the privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause with respect to her contacts with State legislators and their staff. Ms. Henahan's position with the State Education Department required her to work closely with legislators in the formulation of budgetary legislation, and thus, the privilege in question was properly invoked by her to safeguard the legislative function from judicial interference inimical to the legislature's constitutional stature and performance as a separate, co-equal branch of government (see, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 618, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583; see also, Straniere v. Silver, 218 A.D.2d 80, 83, 637 N.Y.S.2d 982, affd. 89 N.Y.2d 825, 653 N.Y.S.2d 270, 675 N.E.2d 1222). The court also correctly restricted inquiries regarding Henahan's communications with executive branch officials pursuant to the common-law legislative privilege inasmuch as the communications in question were undertaken by her to assist executive branch officials in their performance of a legislative function (see, Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 55, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79). Finally, we perceive no factual basis for plaintiffs' contention that the privileges Ms. Henahan sought to invoke had been waived.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 28, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)