by Kareem Fahim

Gov. David A. Paterson announced on Sunday that he would unilaterally withhold $750 million in scheduled payments to schools and local governments, saying that strong action was necessary to protect New York State from insolvency.

The reductions of 10 to 19 percent in aid will affect schools and social service providers, health insurance payments, cities and counties. Mr. Paterson said the withheld funds were not “a cut” or an “impoundment” — perhaps drawing a legal distinction because only the Legislature is empowered to make permanent budget cuts.

Some lawmakers called the move illegal, but the governor said “we are well within the bounds of legal authority.”

The governor did not indicate when he would restore the funds, except to say, “as sufficient revenues become available.”

The reductions mean that New York City will not get approximately $84 million in municipal aid and school payments scheduled for Tuesday; an additional $107 million will be withheld across the state. Later this month, $560 million more in scheduled payments will be withheld.

A spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the city was still studying the governor’s proposal. The mayor has said he would probably not object to a plan for spending cuts, as long as they did not disproportionately affect the city.

In announcing the withholding, Mr. Paterson made good on a threat he issued late last month to act on his own if the Legislature did not make enough cuts to address a $3.2 billion state budget deficit. The governor acknowledged that the move was only a “temporary fix.” He said it was needed because of Albany’s legislators’ inaction.

“The reason that we don’t have a permanent fix is because the Legislature walked away and ran back to their districts and told their constituents, ‘Look, I saved the school district from the big bad governor,’ ” he said. “But the reality is that they only temporarily delayed the day of reckoning.”

Mr. Paterson’s cuts to school funds were a direct challenge to state lawmakers, who have regarded such state aid as sacrosanct. After the governor’s announcement, school districts sought to determine the move’s impact.

It was also uncertain when the state’s fiscal health would improve enough so that the withheld money could be restored; the state’s revenue picture is expected to brighten somewhat next month, after bonuses are paid to Wall Street executives and as tax revenue starts to trickle in.

Mr. Paterson is scheduled to present his executive budget next month, and he may propose that some of the withheld payments be cut permanently.

Austin Shafran, the spokesman for the Democratic majority in the Senate, called Mr. Paterson’s actions “self-indulgent theatrics,” and said that New Yorkers “want their leaders to work together to get things done.”

“The first thing that should be done is to work with the Legislature to mitigate any potential cash-flow problem,” Mr. Shafran said. “Taking away money from schoolchildren should not be under consideration.”

Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat, said of Mr. Paterson, “He doesn’t have the legal authority to impound; he may have the legal authority to delay.” Mr. Brodsky said that Mr. Paterson was trying to create the “political environment” for permanent budget cuts.

“If he’ s trying to force a broad recognition that we’ve run out of money, fine,” Mr. Brodsky said. But he warned that “there will be human consequences.”

Other lawmakers, including State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, a Democrat, pointed out that a 1980 Court of Appeals decision characterized a governor’s attempts to impound money allocated by the Legislature as unconstitutional.

For several weeks this fall, as state revenues continued to drop, lawmakers haggled over how to cut more than $3 billion from the state budget, with Mr. Paterson urging legislators to consider politically unpopular cuts to schools and health care.

The Legislature finally passed a $2.7 billion deficit-reduction plan this month, cutting pensions for many new government workers and overhauling public authorities, but the action was criticized by financial watchdogs who said it did not go far enough and relied too heavily on nonrecurring savings. His aides said that Mr. Paterson cut the state’s largest expenditures remaining in December. In doing so, school districts took the brunt of the pain.

Mr. Paterson’s plan calls for cutting 10 percent of payments due on Tuesday and 19 percent of payments due later in the month.

Elizabeth Lynam, the deputy research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit group that analyzes government spending, called the move “the right course of action.”

“If the funds are not available to make these payments right now, then they should not be made,” she said.

The cuts in school payments drew the strongest resistance. Though Mr. Paterson said that most school districts had reserve funds that would allow them to absorb the reductions, he acknowledged that poorer school districts were “going to be a problem.”

But Stephen Allinger, legislative director of the New York State United Teachers union, said many districts had already used up their reserves for the year. Mr. Paterson’s reductions could affect after-school and sports programs, and result in staff reductions, Mr. Allinger said.

And he asked a question about the cuts that seemed to be on many people’s minds: “What does this mean? Is it just late, or are they going to cut it altogether?”

Mr. Paterson asserted that state law gives him the authority to order his budget director to stop certification of payments in order to preserve the economic stability of the state. Otherwise, Mr. Paterson reasoned, the state would be writing checks it could not back. Yet even as he acknowledged that his legal authority to withhold the payments might be challenged, he said that “this is as far as I can expand the powers of the executive branch within the legal limit.”