## Facts

- The New York Legislature historically used a “bicameral recall” practice to request the return of bills from the Governor after formal delivery, typically to permit further negotiation or amendment.
- Assembly Bill No. 9592-A (1990), concerning siting of certain waste management/resource recovery facilities within agricultural districts, passed the Assembly (June 28, 1990) and Senate (June 29, 1990).
- The bill was formally delivered to the Governor on July 19, 1990.
- The next day, the Assembly adopted (and the Senate concurred in) a resolution requesting the Governor to return the bill; the Executive Chamber returned it that same day.
- Petitioners (including a town supervisor) challenged the recall, contending it was unconstitutional under N.Y. Const. art. IV, § 7 and that the bill became law because the Governor did not sign or veto it within the constitutional ten-day period after delivery.

## Issues

1. Whether a challenge to the Legislature’s bicameral recall practice presents a justiciable separation-of-powers question or a nonjusticiable internal legislative matter.
2. Whether N.Y. Const. art. IV, § 7 authorizes the Legislature to recall a bill after formal presentment to the Governor.
3. If recall is unconstitutional, whether the bill became law automatically due to the Governor’s failure to act within the ten-day period.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the controversy justiciable because it required enforcing a clear constitutional allocation of lawmaking authority between the political branches.
- The Court held the bicameral recall practice, as used to reacquire the bill from the Governor after formal delivery, was not authorized by art. IV, § 7 and was unconstitutional.
- The Court limited the declaration of unconstitutionality to prospective effect only.
- The Court reversed the Appellate Division and rejected petitioners’ claim that the bill became law by operation of the ten-day rule in this case.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes when the claim turns on enforcing an explicit constitutional structure governing how laws are enacted, even if the dispute arises from legislative practice.
- N.Y. Const. art. IV, § 7 provides an exclusive procedure for presentment and gubernatorial approval or veto; extra-textual mechanisms that alter that process after presentment are invalid.
- Long-standing governmental practice cannot create authority contrary to clear constitutional text; custom may inform interpretation only where the Constitution is ambiguous.
- A court may apply a declaration of unconstitutionality prospectively to avoid disruption where government has substantially relied on an entrenched practice.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ruled that New York’s bicameral recall of a bill after formal delivery to the Governor violates the Constitution’s presentment-and-action framework, but applied the ruling only going forward, leaving the challenged bill not treated as law by the ten-day default rule in this litigation.


Matter of King v. Cuomo, 81 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 1993)