Thomas Breen photo
Alders' attorney Einhorn: "This is a no-brainer argument. The legislative body has its own powers."
Lawyers for the Board of Alders, the City of New Haven, and the city’s former fire union president took their turns Monday arguing a separation-of-powers dispute that apparently lacks state court precedent.
That is: Should the city’s legislative branch be allowed to sue the executive branch? Or is the Board of Alders fundamentally a part of the City of New Haven, and the city can’t legally sue itself?
That argument played out for roughly half an hour Monday in a sixth-floor courtroom at 235 Church St., as part of the latest hearing in the five-years-and-counting state court case Board of Alders v. City of New Haven.
The city’s legislature first filed this lawsuit against the Elicker administration back in July 2020 over Mayor Justin Elicker’s approval of a $386,659 pension enhancement for retired fire union President Frank Ricci.
The Board of Alders has argued that the city’s payment of this annuity violates a local law that requires all contracts worth at least $100,000 to first be approved by the city’s legislature. The mayor has responded that the city was legally required to make the extra retirement payments because of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) first signed in 2006 between the DeStefano administration and the fire union, then amended in 2019 by the Harp administration to specifically provide for Ricci.
That substantive matter was not up for dispute on Monday in court before Judge Angelica Papastavros.
Instead, the three sides — Jonathan Einhorn, a former alder representing the Board of Alders; Paula Anthony, representing the City of New Haven; and Eric Brown, representing co-defendants Frank and Christine Ricci — were present to argue for and against the Riccis’ motion to dismiss the five-year-old lawsuit on the grounds that the city can’t sue itself, and therefore the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to continue hearing the case.
“There is no clear appellate case law on this,” Brown said in his opening remarks to the judge, in just one of several indications by the various lawyers that this particular legal question has not been resolved by past state court cases.
Brown noted that, in order for a municipal entity to be legally allowed to file a lawsuit, it has to be “a distinct body politic” under state statute; or state law has to specifically allow for that entity to file suits.
The Board of Alders is not a “separate and distinct body politic,” he contended. Instead, as the city’s legislature, it is “part of the municipality.” In order to have legal standing in this case, it must be a “distinct body politic,” he repeated, “but it is not.” It is the “legislative arm” of the local government. And the state allows municipalities to file lawsuits; it doesn’t allow arms of municipal government to do so.
There is “no question that the Board of Alders is not a separate legal entity,” Anthony added during her brief remarks before the court. It therefore doesn’t have the power to sue or be sued independent of the full municipality.
“There’s really nothing out there that deals with this on point,” she said about previous state court cases that may have touched on this matter of one branch of city government suing another. “It’s a case of first impression in that regard, and obviously has widespread” consequences depending on how the judge rules.
During his time to counter, Einhorn argued that this is all a “red herring issue. It’s really a non-issue.”
The only reason no other courts have weighed in on this matter before — as to whether or not a city’s legislature could sue the executive branch — is because “it’s so obvious” that such an action is permissible.
“Just look at the charter,” he said in regards to the city’s foundational legal document. He said that the city charter empowers the Board of Alders “to do what it needs to do to enforce its authorities” — including by filing a lawsuit like the one in this case.
Einhorn argued that no court has dealt with this exact question before because “no one thought this was a serious enough issue” to litigate.
Einhorn also pointed out that the Riccis made a similar argument, that the case should be thrown out because the city can’t sue itself, in a motion for summary judgment in April 2024. Judge Papastavros denied that motion in December 2024. He described the present motion to dismiss as the defense’s attempt to “get a second bite at your summary judgment” ruling.
But, ultimately, Einhorn returned to his argument that of course the city legislature should be able to file a lawsuit against the executive branch of government. “This is a no-brainer argument. The legislative body has its own powers.”
Brown, representing the Riccis, strongly disagreed. For one, the judge’s one-sentence ruling in December 2024 did not address the jurisdictional issue raised in the motion for summary judgment. That jurisdictional issue, which deals with the underlying law rather than the facts of the case, must be decided before this lawsuit can move forward.
As for the city charter, Brown said, it does not empower the Board of Alders to file lawsuits. Rather, it empowers the alders to enforce its authority “by appropriate ordinances” — that is, by passing relevant laws. It doesn’t say anything about the alders’ ability to file a lawsuit, he said.
“If the Board of Alders thought there was a problem here, they could have passed an ordinance,” Brown said. “There is no authority in the charter giving the Board of Alders power to sue or be sued.”
Judge Papastavros asked the city’s attorney to file a brief in the case by Thursday. She also asked Einhorn to submit into evidence the relevant section of the city charter by that same date. At around 11:20 a.m., she thanked the various lawyers and promised to issue a ruling on the papers.
Eric Brown, representing the Riccis, and Paula Anthony, representing the city.
Thomas Breen file photo
Judge Papastavros.