"The new city charter, which took effect last year, grants the city's law department new authority that it didn't have before:"

Irrelevant. The Law Department should have raised these legal issues when the "breach of contract" first occurred. The fact that they didn't means they were incompetent then or now or both. I'm sticking with both.

"You sound like you are referencing the $225+ million that the current State Treasurer acknowledged in public was owed to the City, but that he had no intention of attempting to right the wrong that was created when the State held the City to its part of the deal even though the State did not keeps its part of the deal."

You can call it a "deal" but it wasn't a legal contract between the city and state. No such thing exists. On what legal basis can the city demand that the state legislature appropriate state revenue sharing funds to the city? There is none.