A deadline to perfect the appeal in state Sen. George Borrello’s lawsuit over the state’s proposed isolation and quarantine rules has been extended until mid-March.

Jonathan D. Hitsous, assistant state solicitor general, sent the Fourth Department Appellate Division a letter on Jan. 6 requesting the appeal. The Jan. 13 deadline for the first round of submissions was set when the state appealed the decision by Judge Ronald Ploetz in state Supreme Court in Cattaraugus County on July 13. The Fourth Department Appellate Division has given the state until March 14 to file its paperwork.

“There is good cause for appellants’ request, namely, that I have been preparing briefs and oral arguments in numerous other cases and am only now able to begin drafting the brief in this case,” Hitsous wrote.”

Bobbie Anne Flower Cox, the attorney representing Borrello and his fellow respondents in the case, opposed the extension to perfect the appeal and file briefs because of the amount of time the state had to file the paperwork.

“That explanation is an affront to the court,” Cox wrote. “The New York State Solicitor General has vastly superior resources in staffing and financing than do the respondents, and they had already prepared oral and written submissions to the trial court. Ignoring this case for several months is hardly a reasonable explanation to support a request for a 60-day extension to perfect the appeal. As such, we hereby object to any extension of time for appellants to perfect the appeal.”

On July 9, Ploetz ruled in George M. Borrello et. al. v. Kathleen C. Hochul et. al. that proposed Rule 2.13 violates the state and U.S. constitutions because it violates constitutional due process rights. Among the changes would be a new section of the state health law spelling out new isolation and quarantine procedures. Isolation and quarantine orders would include home isolation or other residential or temporary housing location that the public health authority issuing the order deems appropriate, including a hospital if necessary but including apartments, hotels or motels. Implementing the proposal through administrative rulemaking, lawmakers argue, is a violation of the separation of powers.

Borrello and his fellow plaintiffs argued that the expansion of the state’s authority usurped legislative authority while also not allowing proper due process until after someone was placed into an involuntary quarantine. Ploetz ruled the proposed administrative rules disregarded any balance of individual rights against the needs of public safety rules, that the Health Department had not just filled in details of a broad legislative policy but used a blank slate to write its own rules, and that the Health Department had not used any special expertise or competence in the field to develop its proposed rules.