Plans by Eliot Spitzer to push for the removal of New York’s comptroller, Alan Hevesi, are threatening to backfire on the governor-elect, who is facing pressure to reverse course and accept the growing possibility that Mr. Hevesi will survive his ethics scandal and serve a second term in office.

Shortly before November’s general election, Mr. Spitzer withdrew his endorsement of Mr. Hevesi, saying the comptroller had compromised his “ability to fulfill his responsibilities.” Mr. Spitzer abandoned Mr. Hevesi days after the release of a scathing report by the Ethics Commission that accused the comptroller of failing to reimburse the state for using two of his employees to chauffeur and nurse his ailing wife. At the time, the public outcry over the scandal had reached a boiling point, and Mr. Hevesi’s support in the polls was in free fall.

Since then, the political and legal landscape has changed — in Mr. Hevesi’s favor in many ways. Instead of folding, Mr. Hevesi unloaded almost all of his $5 million campaign war chest, spending the bulk of it on campaign ads and his legal team, and he easily defeated his Republican opponent.

The special counsel that Governor Pataki has appointed to review the case has cast doubt on the legality of removing from office a public official who won re-election after his offenses had been exposed to the public. With less than three weeks left in office, Mr. Pataki is likely to simply hand the scandal over to Mr. Spitzer.

The Albany district attorney conducting a criminal inquiry into the chauffeur controversy, David Soares, has told the Albany Times Union that Mr. Hevesi wouldn’t be charged with anything higher than a Class E felony, the lowest felony offense. In Albany, an indictment is far from a death sentence. As Albany historians point out, two Assembly speakers have won reelection after being charged with crimes.

Meanwhile, a source familiar with the attorney general office’s inquiry to determine Mr. Hevesi’s debt to the state is downplaying the findings by state prosecutors, telling The New York Sun they wouldn’t dramatically change the scope of the case. Two of Mr. Spitzer’s top investigators are in the final stages of negotiating a settlement with Mr. Hevesi’s lawyers. Mr. Spitzer has recused himself from the case.

Most troublesome for Mr. Spitzer, the most powerful Democrat in the Legislature, Sheldon Silver, is sending a signal to back away. In an article about the Hevesi controversy, New York magazine quoted the speaker as saying, “Spitzer doesn’t control the situation.

“He’s dealt with assistant attorneys general whom he appointed. He’s dealing in a different league, a different climate, a different dynamic now. He’s dealing with individually elected officials. He never had to do that before,” Mr. Silver reportedly said.

It’s far from clear that Mr. Spitzer has enough votes from state senators, particularly among the Democratic minority conference, to oust Mr. Hevesi should the governor-elect direct the Senate to conduct a removal proceeding.

With momentum shifting to Mr. Hevesi, Mr. Spitzer is presented with a difficult choice. His hard-line stance against the comptroller and his promise to clean up Albany’s reputation has raised expectations that he won’t let Mr. Hevesi off the hook.

Seeking to oust Mr. Hevesi could be even more problematic for the new governor. It would likely cause a major distraction as he seeks to garner support for his reform agenda and budget priorities. More importantly, Mr. Spitzer, who made a reputation as attorney general as the hard-nosed “Sheriff of Wall Street,” would be gambling with his reputation, Democrats say.

“He could certainly risk a loss of stature because he might not win it,” a Democratic source said.

An increasingly likely scenario is that Mr. Spitzer will follow the same prosecutorial playbook that he perfected as attorney general in his cases targeting Wall Street corruption. In his white-collar clashes, Mr. Spitzer issued relatively few indictments; his preferred tactic against was to rely on public shaming and threats to extract admissions of wrongdoing, expensive settlements, and regulatory changes to prevent further abuses.

A settlement with prosecutors in the attorney general’s office could give Mr. Spitzer an opening to put the matter to rest. Mr. Hevesi could agree to pay a fine well exceeding what he owes to the state and submit to a joint resolution of censure by both the Assembly and the Senate. Mr. Hevesi has already paid back more than $170,000.

As governor, Mr. Spitzer could argue that Mr. Hevesi has been dealt with harshly and that it would be wiser to permit him to remain in office than to pursue a lengthy legal battle that would put the state’s fiscal watchdog in limbo for months or even years.

At the same time, Mr. Spitzer could propose legislation to clarify the state’s impeachment laws and sign an executive order that would further restrict the use of state vehicles by public employees.

Last month, the special counsel appointed by Mr. Pataki, David Kelley, released a preliminary report that said Mr. Hevesi’s actions were serious enough to provide a “valid legal basis” for removing him from office but said it was premature to make a recommendation. He said he needed time to review the evidence and interview witnesses and that he could not advise the governor to take any action until the Senate established clear rules for a removal proceeding.

Mr. Kelley also warned that an intervening election could pose complications. “However, the law is less settled as to whether an official may be charged for misconduct in a prior term if he is re-elected after his offense ‘had been exposed to the public before election, and had been made an issue during the campaign, and, notwithstanding his wrongdoing, he had been successful at the polls,'” he wrote, citing an appellate division opinion written in 1932.