Assemblyman Andrew Goodell will be permitted to file a brief on behalf of Sen. George Borrello’s lawsuit seeking to reject new state health department isolation and quarantine rules.
The state attorney general’s office filed a motion against Goodell’s amicus curie, or “friend of the court” brief in a lawsuit brought by Sen. George Borrello, R-Sunset Bay and Assemblymen Chris Tague and Michael Lawler who is trying to prevent the Department of Health’s new isolation and quarantine standards State does not become law. Cattaraugus County State Supreme Court Judge Ronald Ploetz ruled that Goodell’s brief would be admitted.
Attorneys David Sleight and Stephanie Calhoun, assistant attorneys general for the Buffalo States, argued that Goodell had not shown that his brief would provide Judge Ronald Ploetz with additional information that had not already been provided. Sleight and Calhoun argue that interest in the case should not allow Goodell or other interested lawmakers to weigh in with briefs. There were more than 80 exhibits, affidavits, affirmations and memoranda of law filed in Borrello, Tague, Lawler and Uniting NYS LLC v. Hochul, Bassett, New York State Department of Health and Council on Public Health and Health Planning.
“However, the extensive pleadings of each party have demonstrated that neither party needs further assistance with respect to the legal issues presented here. The Court will have more than sufficient submissions from each party to render her decision “, Calhoun and Slate argued.
Goodell countered that none of the other three lawmakers involved in the lawsuit are attorneys, while the attorney representing Borrello, Tague and Lawler is not lawmakers, meaning she has no knowledge. direct and personal internal operations of the legislature. The Jamestown Republican cited one of 93 filing documents submitted by Sleight and Calhoun, a pamphlet titled, “How a Bill Becomes a Law.”
The state has argued that legislation proposed and withdrawn under public pressure by Assemblyman Nick Perry, D-Brooklyn, has no bearing on the creation of new isolation and quarantine rules. Goodell argues that he should be allowed to submit his brief because the situation surrounding A.416 is far from the typical procedure seen in a civics class or the pamphlet the state entered into evidence. .
“To be clear, this affidavit is in no way intended to suggest that any of the attorneys appearing in court are not intelligent, capable, and honest attorneys,” Goodell argued. “Most of the lawyers appear to be very competent in researching and articulating their respective positions. Instead, this affidavit simply points out that some of the most important information and knowledge regarding the actual inner workings of the legislature of the ‘state cannot be found in law books, records or pamphlets.The bill introduced by Assemblyman Perry (A.416), which would empower the Department of Health to detain suspected cases, contacts or carriers of a communicable disease, is an excellent example of the difference between theory and practice.
Borrello and his fellow Republicans argued that the legislative repudiation of Perry’s bill should serve as advice that additional isolation or quarantine powers are not something Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature wanted to give. Goodell, in his response to the state’s motion, said he had not seen the public rejection of a bill like he saw with Perry’s A.416.
Lawmakers allege the proceedings violate the state Constitution and should be declared null and void because the state lacks the statutory authority to create the rules and impermissibly entered the legislative arena with the rules. Among the changes would be a new section of the state health law setting out new procedures for isolation and quarantine. Isolation and quarantine orders would include home isolation or any other residential or temporary accommodation that the public health authority issuing the order deems appropriate, including a hospital if necessary, but including apartments , hotels or motels. Implementing the proposal through the making of administrative rules, according to lawmakers, is a violation of the separation of powers.
Goodell argues that the rejection of A.416, which offered more due process guarantees than the new rules proposed by the Department of Health, should serve as a sign that the Department of Health has gone further than the legislature n was willing to go. In particular, Goodell takes issue with the use of law enforcement personnel to confine people suspected of having an illness without a due process hearing or opportunity to be heard.