Investigatory Powers of NYS Commission on Public Integrity Explained
The investigatory powers of the NYS Commission on Public Integrity were at the heart of this case. The Commission was investigating allegations the petitioner (the Chief Executive Officer of the State University of New York Research Foundation) provided a job to the daughter of a prominent politician for which she was not qualified and did little work. During the course of the investigation the Commission issued a Notice of Reasonable Cause (NORC) to the petitioner alleging a violation of Public Officers Law 74 (3) and requiring, by subpoena, the petitioner to provide testimony. The petitioner argued that the commission’s power to issue a subpoena, under the controlling statutes and regulations, ended upon the issuance of the NORC. In rejecting that argument, and accepting the Commission’s contrary argument that its power to investigate continued after the issuance of an NORC, the Third Department wrote:
Notably, the Commission’s interpretation of its regulation is consistent with the overall purpose and spirit of Executive Law § 94, which is to “strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in government through fair and just adjudicatory procedures that afford all parties due process protection and fair and just resolution of all matters” (19 NYCRR 941.1…). Following the issuance of a NORC, the Commission could become aware of other potential witnesses or additional information relevant to the possible violations. Thus, construing the regulation to permit the Commission to continue its investigation, despite having issued a NORC, would best serve the underlying purposes of the statute. Conversely, to interpret the regulation as precluding investigation into new evidence, based solely on the fact that a NORC had been issued, would clearly impede the truth seeking function of the Commission. In the Matter of O’Connor v Ginsberg…, 514200, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13