40 N.Y.2d 1008 | NY | 1976
Memorandum. We affirm the order of the Appellate Division and its upholding of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 10 (9 NYCRR 3.10). In such affirmance we, as did the Appellate Division, distinguish Griswold v Connecticut (381 US 479), a case which recognized and broadly delineated a right to privacy but in a vastly different situation. Rather than rely on such cases as California Bankers Assn. v Shultz (416 US 21), United States v Miller (425 US 434), Fisher v United States (425 US 391), and Buckley v Valeo (424 US 1), each of which involves an unsuccessful challenge to a governmental requirement or governmental demand directing a third party to maintain records or disclose information, we rest instead on the authority of cases such as United Public
Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur; Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli and Fuchsberg concur in the following memorandum: Although the opinion of Mr. Presiding Justice John Marsh at the Appellate Division cogently justifies on constitutional grounds a statute requiring financial disclosures by public employees and officers, it does not address itself to whether a statute, as distinguished from an "executive order”, is required to accomplish such objective. But appellants have never contended otherwise and, indeed, none of the parties has briefed that question. Hence, we do not reach it.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.