Legal News

NY Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of 63rd Senate Seat
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

On Friday, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun held that those who had challenged the creation of the 63rd Senate district in New York had failed to prove that the challenged plan was unconstitutional or illegal. The voters and Senate Democrats who had challenged the creation of New York’s 63rd Senate district had alleged that the plan of creating the district was faulty and illegal because it combined two different methods of counting residents.

The city can proceed to add a 63rd seat to the state Senate following the procedures it had decided upon earlier.

Justice Braun wrote, “Although this court finds disturbing the legislature’s use of one method for Queens and Nassau Counties and a different method for Richmond and Suffolk Counties, petitioners have not sustained their heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature has acted unconstitutionally.”


The lawsuit had been filed on January 31 by Senator Martin Dilan representing Brooklyn and voters. They had originally sued New York’s Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR) which was responsible to redo the state’s congressional maps and redraw the state’s Assembly and Senate districts reflecting population shifts.

The original suit claimed that LATFOR violated the state Constitution by employing two different methods to calculate population and justify the boundaries of a 63rd Senate seat. The plaintiffs claimed that Section 4 of the state Constitution was infringed and the formula propounded by Section 4 for recalculating state Senate seats following each Census was not followed.

The lawsuit alleged that LATFOR used different methods of counting population with respect to different sections of boundaries of the new Senate district according to the convenience of Republicans.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

However, in 1972, both the methods of calculations employed by LATFOR had been found constitutional in Schneider v. Rockefeller, and the case of the plaintiffs that LATFOR must pick either one or the other for all calculations was found without merit.

Braun had earlier dismissed the suit on March 9, holding that it couldn’t be decided upon merits unless the bill became law. Cuomo signed the bill into law on March 15. Subsequently, on the same day, the plaintiffs refiled the action.

The case is Cohen v. Cuomo, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, No. 102185/12.



Attorney - Insurance Defense


Lydecker Diaz, a multi-state civil litigation firm, seeks an attorney with 3-4 years of experience i...

Apply now



Family Law Associate - Family law firm with an emphasis in family, civil and criminal law needs a fa...

Apply now

Litigation Attorney


Litigation Attorney Well established Plaintiff statewide Personal Injury Protection (PIP) law fir...

Apply now

Associate Attorney - Personal Injury


Statewide law firm looking for associate attorney to manage and handle significant caseload of perso...

Apply now




Search Now

Junior to Mid-level Investment Management Associate Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

New York City office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks junior to mid-level investme...

Apply Now

Mid-level Debt Finance Associate Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks mid-level debt finance-focus...

Apply Now

Senior Business and Corporate Law Attorney


Murrieta office of our client seeks a senior business and corporate law attorney with 3+ years of bu...

Apply Now

Most Popular


To Top