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.
VSF COALITION, INC., appellant, v. Nicholas SCOPPETTA, etc., defendant, Eliot Spitzer, etc., respondent.
In an action, inter alia, in effect, to direct the defendant Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General of the State of New York, to compel the remaining defendants to comply with the Pension Impairment Clause of the New York State Constitution (N.Y. Const., art. V, § 7), the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated February 11, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General of the State of New York, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (hereinafter Attorney-General), was not a proper party to the action since he did not administer the pension fund at issue (see Matter of N.J. Koss, Inc. v. Regan, 149 A.D.2d 785, 787, 539 N.Y.S.2d 579; Joanne S. v. Carey, 115 A.D.2d 4, 9, 498 N.Y.S.2d 817; Sobel v. Higgins, 151 Misc.2d 876, 878, 573 N.Y.S.2d 1000).
Further, the relief sought is in the nature of mandamus, which is unavailable to compel the performance of a discretionary act (see Matter of Garrison Protective Servs. v. Office of Comptroller of City of N.Y., 92 N.Y.2d 732, 736, 685 N.Y.S.2d 921, 708 N.E.2d 994; Matter of Crain Communications v. Hughes, 74 N.Y.2d 626, 628, 541 N.Y.S.2d 971, 539 N.E.2d 1099; Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 529, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588). The Attorney-General has the discretion regarding whether to commence suit, and a court has no authority to interfere with such discretion (see People ex rel. Demarest v. Fairchild, 67 N.Y. 334, 336; Matter of Lewis v. Lefkowitz, 32 Misc.2d 434, 223 N.Y.S.2d 221).
Lastly, inasmuch as a qui tam action is a creation of statute (see Grover v. Morris, 73 N.Y. 473, 478), the plaintiff was not authorized to bring such an action in the place of the defendant Attorney-General in the absence of a statute providing for such right.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 20, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)