With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". overseeing use of budget appropriations held to be an unconstitutional encroachment on powers of the executive); In re Opinion of the Justices to the Governor, 369 Mass. 990, 341 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1976) (‘[T]o entrust the executive power of expenditure to legislative officers is to violate [the mandated separation of powers] by authorizing the legislative department to exercise executive power.’); State ex rel. Meyer v. State Board, 185 Neb. 490, 500, 176 N.W.2d 920, 926 (1970) (‘[The legislature] cannot through the power of appropriation exercise or invade the constitutional rights and powers of the executive branch of the government. It cannot administer the appropriation once it has been made.’); People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 56, 168 N.E. 817, 827 (1929) (Crane, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>).” Id. at 197-98. This Court has not hesitated

A: holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others
B: holding unconstitutional a requirement that a legislative committee sit with the governor in decisions regarding spending of money on state buildings see separate opinion of justice crane
C: holding that the governor of new york has only those powers delegated to him by the state constitution and the statutes
D: holding that sovereign immunity does not bar a mandamus action against the governor and the department of transportation to compel their performanee in accordance with constitutional and legislative mandates
B.