Constitution says “No”

We have no quarrel with those who say that having a man of Mr.
Ravitch's stature, knowledge, and experience in the office of
lieutenant-governor would promote the public interest by providing help
and counsel to the Governor in difficult times and by bringing
much-needed stability to the government of this State. We conclude,
however, that the Governor simply does not have the authority to
appoint a lieutenant-governor, that his purported appointment of Mr.
Ravitch cannot be reconciled with an unambiguous and contrary provision
in the State Constitution, and that no considerations of the State's
financial difficulties or of political strife in the Senate allow us to
find authority for Mr. Ravitch's appointment where none exists.

Section 3 of article XIII of the State Constitution provides in
pertinent part that "[t]he legislature shall provide for filling
vacancies in office." Pursuant to that authority, the Legislature
enacted Public Officers Law §§ 41, 42, and 43. Section 41 authorizes
the Legislature to appoint a person "to fill" a vacancy in the office
of Attorney General or Comptroller. Section 42 provides for the filling
of vacancies in certain other offices, with a specific exception for
the "offices of governor or lieutenant-governor" (Public Officers Law §
42[1]).

…

Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from. Because we
recognize that this matter is one of great public import and ought to
be resolved finally and expeditiously by the Court of Appeals, we
dispense with the need for the Governor to move for leave to appeal to
that Court and, on our own motion, grant leave.