Debunking the myths – NY “Common Law Grand Jury” – Quo Warranto

The self proclaimed ‘NY Common Law Grand Jury’ has issued quo warranto and have claimed to have issued ‘true bills’ for indictment. Of course, they lack the legal foundation to be able to issue indictments, and they lack the legal foundation to file a complain of Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto in NY State, the courts have found that the action should be initiated by the Attorney General.

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of this Court and dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the exclusive remedy was a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto commenced by the attorney general pursuant to Executive Law § 63-b (see Matter of Delgado v Sunderland, 97 NY2d 420 [2002]; Matter of Hanington v Coveney, 62 NY2d 640 [1984]). Hockley took office on March 15, 2002, one day after the Court of Appeals rendered its decision.

Source: People v Delgado 2003 NY Slip Op 18444 [1 AD3d 72] November 17, 2003

Under these circumstances, the proper vehicle for challenging the results and contesting title to the public office of the purported winner is a quo warranto action, now codified in Executive Law § 63-b (see People ex rel. McLaughlin v Board of Police Commrs. of City of Yonkers, 174 N.Y. 450 [1903]). The power to commence a quo warranto action is vested in the Attorney General, to be used only after the alleged “usurper” has taken office (see Executive Law § 63-b). In exercising this power, the Attorney General performs an investigative and screening function on such challenges (see Morris v Cahill, 96 A.D.2d 88, 91 [1983] [op by Levine, J.]), and is presumed to afford a claimant a full opportunity to assert a legal right, if any exists (see Matter of Gardner, 68 N.Y. 467, 470 [1877]). The exclusivity of quo warranto in these circumstances also avoids the risk of leaving the contested office vacant for possibly a protracted period while the election result is being litigated through the courts to a final conclusion (see Matter of Hearst v Woelper, 183 N.Y. 274, 284 [1905]; Seavey v Van Hatten,

Source:  MTR. OF DELGADO v. SUNDERLAND 97 N.Y.2d 420 (2002) 767 N.E.2d 662 741 N.Y.S.2d 171