Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Court rejects attorney?s claim that public funds were wasted because he was qualified and would have done the legal work for substantially less money

Court rejects attorney?s claim that public funds were wasted because he was qualified and would have done the legal work for substantially less money
Matter of Diederich v Lawrence, 2010 NY Slip Op 07850, Decided on November 4, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Attorney Michael Diederich Jr., a resident of Rockland County, sued the Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority contending that Authority had ?wasted taxpayer money? by paying a law firm, Holland & Knight, LLP, a legal fee of $104,000 for preparing an amicus curiae brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court.*

Diederich argued that he, as well as other attorneys, had more relevant expertise and would have completed the legal work for substantially less money.

The Authority and Holland & Knight moved for summary judgment challenging both Diederich's standing to bring the action and his substantive allegations. Supreme Court dismissed Diederich's petition, finding that he had not established standing under the common law or State Finance Law §123-b.**

The Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court?s ruling, noting that ?Common-law standing requires a showing of ?an injury in fact, distinct from that of the general public,? that falls within the zone of interests promoted or protected by the pertinent regulation or statute.? Diederich, said the court, failed to allege an injury distinct from other taxpayers and, thus, has not met his burden as to common-law standing.

As to Diederich?s argument that the Authority acted ultra vires*** when it spent funds for an amicus brief, the Appellate Division observed that ?Common-law taxpayer standing implicates "important governmental actions" that would otherwise evade judicial review, and the doctrine ?should not be applied . . . to permit challenges to the determinations of local governmental officials having no appreciable public significance beyond the immediately affected parties, by persons having only the remotest legitimate interest in the matter? [and] this criteria is not satisfied by [Diederich?s] personal interest in providing allegedly less expensive legal services and the apparent slight tax increase reportedly caused by the Authority's decision to use Holland & Knight, a law firm with which it had an ongoing relationship for several years.?

Addressing the merits of Diederich?s ultra vires argument, the court said that ?retaining a law firm to prepare an amicus brief for a case pending before the United States Supreme Court that includes an issue of significance to the Authority falls within the powers conferred to the Authority by the Legislature,? citing Public Authorities Law §2053-c [4]; §2053-e [12]..

* The brief amicus curiae [friend of the court] had been prepared by Holland & Knight in for submission to the Supreme Court in United Haulers Assn. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgt. Auth, 550 US 330.

** The Appellate Division noted that Diederich had not argued that he has standing under State Finance Law §123-b on appeal and deemed that he had abandoned that claim.

*** Ultra vires - Latin for "beyond its powers," referring to an organization or its officers that exceeds the powers granted it by law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07850.htm
NYPPL

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 10, 2010 (boomark / email).