## Facts

- New York enacted the Stem Cell Act creating the Empire State Stem Cell Board (ESSCB) to administer a trust fund awarding grants to stem cell researchers.
- ESSCB operated through a funding committee (grant solicitation/approval) and an ethics committee (ethical, scientific, and medical standards).
- In 2009, ESSCB adopted a resolution allowing future grant contracts to permit compensation to women who donate oocytes for research.
- Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Inc. (FCLNY) and individual directors filed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking to annul the resolution.
- Petitioners argued (i) informed-consent standards for compensated donors were inadequate, (ii) ESSCB lacked statutory authority to allow compensation, and (iii) compensation could facilitate somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and thus violate a statutory bar on grant funds being “directly or indirectly utilized” for research involving “human reproductive cloning.”
- Supreme Court (Albany County) dismissed the petition in part for lack of standing and in part on the merits, and petitioners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the individual petitioners had taxpayer standing under State Finance Law § 123-b to challenge the resolution as causing an illegal or unconstitutional disbursement of state funds.
2. Whether FCLNY had organizational standing to challenge the resolution and related program standards.
3. Whether ESSCB exceeded its statutory authority by permitting compensation to oocyte donors given asserted informed-consent requirements and other statutory constraints.
4. Whether SCNT used to create stem cells constitutes “human reproductive cloning,” making the donor-compensation program an impermissible use of grant funds “directly or indirectly.”

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed dismissal of the proceeding.
- The individual petitioners lacked taxpayer standing under State Finance Law § 123-b because their informed-consent challenge attacked program administration and safeguards, not an illegal category of state expenditure with a sufficient nexus to fiscal illegality.
- The court rejected the claim that the policy violated the statutory prohibition on funding “human reproductive cloning,” holding that SCNT to create stem cells for research is not “human reproductive cloning.”
- The court sustained ESSCB’s statutory authority to adopt the resolution, accepting ESSCB’s interpretation of its enabling statute as reasonable in a technically complex regulatory area.

## Legal Principles

- Taxpayer standing under State Finance Law § 123-b is narrowly construed and requires a sufficient nexus between the claim and an allegedly illegal or unconstitutional disbursement of state funds; complaints about mismanagement or the manner of administering lawful funding are generally insufficient.
- Where the Legislature assigns an expert agency authority to set ethical and scientific standards, courts may defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation and implementation of its enabling statute.
- A statutory prohibition on funding “human reproductive cloning” may be construed to target cloning intended to produce a live-born human being, not SCNT used solely to create stem-cell lines for research.
- A grant program does not violate a ban on funds being “directly or indirectly utilized” for prohibited cloning where the authorized research method (SCNT for stem cells) is outside the statute’s definition of “human reproductive cloning.”

## Conclusion

The court upheld ESSCB’s resolution allowing grant-funded compensation for oocyte donation, ruling that the individual petitioners lacked taxpayer standing to litigate informed-consent-based objections and that SCNT for stem-cell research is not “human reproductive cloning” under the governing statute, leaving the policy in effect.


Feminists Choosing Life of N.Y., Inc. v. Empire State Stem Cell Bd., 87 A.D.3d 47, 926 N.Y.S.2d 671 (App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011)