Pataki v. New York State Assembly

Peters, J. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent. In our view, because plaintiff affirmatively approved the subject legislation, he lacks standing and, thus, this Court is precluded from reaching the merits of his constitutional claims. Had plaintiff vetoed the subject legislation, he would have had standing to challenge it if his veto had been overridden by the Legislature.

We begin our legal analysis with the well-established precept *79that one claiming standing must demonstrate an injury in fact, that is, “an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated [which] ensures that the party . .…