By ADAM SICHKO
The Albany Business Review

New York's highest court ruled Tuesday that Richard Ravitch can legally serve as the state's lieutenant governor.

In a 4-3 vote, the state Court of Appeals determined that New York's Constitution allows governors to appoint lieutenant governors when the position is vacant. The ruling overturns lower-court decisions that had barred Ravitch from assuming the duties of lieutenant governor.

The lieutenant governor is first in line to act as governor if Paterson becomes incapacitated or leaves the state. The lieutenant governor also has the power to cast a tie-breaking vote in the state Senate.

Gov. David Paterson was the state's lieutenant governor until March 2008, when he succeeded to the governor's office after former Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned.

The job remained unfilled for more than a year - until July, when Paterson attempted to appoint Ravitch in an effort to end weeks of bitter, partisan gridlock in the state Senate. At one point this summer, the chamber was deadlocked in two voting blocs, each with 31 people.

The stalemate ended soon after Paterson named Ravitch as lieutenant governor. Today, Democrats maintain their original 32-30 majority.

Paterson termed the court's decision as "a victory for all New Yorkers" and said he has asked Ravitch to work on a long-term fiscal recovery plan and to provide recommendations on structural improvements to the state finances.

Republicans and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, have criticized Ravitch's unprecedented appointment as unconstitutional. Cuomo, in particular, warned that the ensuing legal battles could take "many months" to resolve.

Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Long Island, and Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., D-Bronx, who partnered in the five-week Senate stalemate, jointly sued Paterson over Ravitch's appointment.

Skelos blasted the ruling as "dangerous to democracy."

"Every New Yorker should be troubled by (the ruling)," he said in a statement. "The court has given new power and authority to an unelected governor where no such power had existed under the state Constitution.

"One thing is clear - we must change the law," he added. "We need to clarfiy the process of filling the office of lieutenant governor."

Ravitch is former chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs New York City's subway system. He resides downstate and is also former chairman of Bowery Savings Bank of New York.

In their narrow ruling, Court of Appeals judges said that until this case, state laws and the state Constitution "presented an open legal question" with regard to gubernatorial appointments.

"Rules of succession are, however, inevitably imperfect," the majority wrote in its opinion. "And, at some stage of the devolution they direct, invariably compromise elective principles."

The majority opinion was authored by Chief Judge Hon. Jonathan Lippman. In February, Paterson selected Lippman from a list of candidates to succeed Hon. Judith Kaye as the state's chief judge.

The dissenting judges concluded that the position of lieutenant governor can only be filled during gubernatorial elections.

"Under the majority's rationale, the possibility exists that the citizens of this state will one day find themselves governed by a person who has never been subjected to scrutiny by the electorate, and who could in turn appoint his or her own unelected lieutenant governor," the dissenters wrote. "This is contrary to the text of the New York Constitution and affords governors unprecedented power to appoint a successor ... We should adhere to the Constitution we have, which simply does not authorize what the majority now sanctions."

The dissenters acknowledged the political realities facing Paterson when he attempted to make Ravitch lieutenant governor. At the time, two senators claimed to be the Senate's temporary president, next in line to lead the state if a lieutenant governor cannot serve.

"The resulting uncertainty over the temporary president's identity created two practical problems. First, it clouded the line of gubernatorial succession; and second, the absence of an acknowledged presiding officer thwarted day-to-day business in the Senate," the dissenting judges wrote.

"It is easy to understand why the governor felt impelled to act and has vigorously defended his position," the judges continued. "But neither the governor nor this court can amend the Constitution."