It turns out there is a law that allows any NYC resident with standing to file a lawsuit to recover Rudy's ill-gotten gains:
Is it time for a taxpayer lawsuit? Do we have to wait for NY officials to investigate and prosecute Rudy? Maybe not. When public officials dip into public monies, taxpayers have the right to file lawsuits to prevent the waste of taxpayer funds.
New York General Municipal Law § 51 provides taxpayers with a right to file suit against public officials who waste taxpayer monies:
§ 51. Prosecution of officers for illegal acts. All officers, agents, commissioners and other persons acting, or who have acted, for and on behalf of any county, town, village or municipal corporation in this state, and each and every one of them, may be prosecuted, and an action may be maintained against them ... to prevent waste or injury to, or to restore and make good, any property, funds or estate of such county, town, village or municipal corporation....
Waste is defined in § 51 to include officers or agents of local government (e.g., county, town, village or municipal corporation) who allow or pay for any fraudulent, illegal, unjust, or inequitable claims or expenses:
In case the waste or injury complained of consists in any board, officer or agent in any county, town, village or municipal corporation, by collusion or otherwise, contracting, auditing, allowing or paying, or conniving at the contracting, audit, allowance or payment of any fraudulent, illegal, unjust or inequitable claims, demands or expenses, or any item or part thereof against or by such county, town, village or municipal corporation....
Section 51 authorizes a taxpayer lawsuit "when the acts complained of are fraudulent, or a waste of public property in the sense that they represent a use of public property or funds for entirely illegal purposes."
The taxpayer action is based on a public official's misconduct, such as fraud, collusion, corruption or bad faith. Last year, a NY state comptroller faced a felony charge of defrauding the government and other felonies based on his seemingly similar "use of state employees as chauffeurs and aides to his wife, a law enforcement official said, charges that could have yielded a prison sentence had he been convicted." In this case, the official paid back $83,000 to cover the driver's services because there was "no security threat to justify the use of a driver for his wife." After the Attorney General's office commenced an investigation, the official reimbursed another $90,000. This investigation found that the official used 4 state workers as not just a chauffeur, but also as a "companion, running errands and helping with her physical therapy after she had knee surgery." The final bill for fraud was $206,000.
The objective of a taxpayer lawsuit is to obtain a court judgment mandating Rudy to pay back the monies wrongfully expended on his mistress. The court "shall enforce the restitution and recovery thereof" and has the discretion to "adjudge and declare the colluding or defaulting official personally responsible therefor, and out of his property, and that of his bondsmen, if any, provide for the collection or repayment thereof, so as to indemnify and save harmless the said county, town, village or municipal corporation from a part or the whole thereof...."
Rudy may also have violated the Gift and Loan Clause of the New York State Constitution, which provides that:
"No . . . city . . . shall give or loan any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or association . . . ; nor shall any . . . city . . . give or loan its credit to or in aid of any individual, or public or private corporation or association . . . ."
The Gift and Loan Clause "prohibits a municipality from expending money for the benefit of a private individual or concern unless the expenditure is in furtherance of a public purpose and the municipality is contractually or statutorily required to do so."
Hard to see how having taxpayers pay for a chauffer or security for a mistress would constitute a public purpose or be statutorily permissible if it constituted fraud when similar services were provided to a public official's wife.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/1/03011/3077
Please recommend if you want Rudy sued...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
