The state ethics commission report finding probable cause that the state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, violated state laws puts the comptroller’s fate in the hands of the Legislature and the governor and increases the likelihood that Mr. Hevesi will resign.

In a sternly worded report released yesterday, the ethics commission said Mr. Hevesi lacked a legitimate reason for having one of his employees function for three years as a driver for the comptroller’s ailing wife, Carol Hevesi.

The report also accused Mr. Hevesi of lowballing the amount, $82,688, that he acknowledged that he owed the state and of omitting crucial facts when he first came to the commission in 2003 asking for permission to have an employee provide transportation to his wife.

“The Commission concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Hevesi knowingly and intentionally used his position as New York State Comptroller to secure unwarranted privileges for himself and his wife, and in doing so, pursued a course of conduct that raises suspicion among the public that he likely engaged in acts that violated the public trust,” the report said.

By state law, the commission is powerless to take action against Mr. Hevesi. Instead, it turned over the matter to the Legislature, placing the comptroller’s political fate in the hands of the Democratic Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, and the Republican Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno.

The damaging conclusions drawn by ethics officials increased a sense in Albany that Mr. Hevesi’s time as comptroller is running out. Many Republicans and others in Albany expect that he will try to last until after the election and perhaps until January when a Democrat is expected to assume the governorship.

Mr. Hevesi said in a statement yesterday that he did not agree “with all of the Ethics Commission’s conclusions,” but once again acknowledged that he had a made a serious mistake.

Mr. Hevesi’s little-known Republican opponent, J. Christopher Callaghan, a former treasurer of Saratoga County whose complaint about Mrs. Hevesi’s driver sparked the commission’s investigation and a parallel criminal inquiry by the Albany County district attorney’s office, said if enough New Yorkers become aware of the scandal, “they won’t return him to office.”

The report said Mr. Hevesi’s failure to keep any record of the time that the employee spent driving his wife and the fact that he did not seek to pay for the personal service until the matter exploded in the press suggests “that Mr. Hevesi did not intend to reimburse the state.”

It was the first time that the 19-year-old commission has found that a statewide office-holder had violated the public officers law. In a state capitol that runs on tradition and eschews change, the unprecedented development was greeted with confusion by different branches of government. Immediately after the report came out, lawyers for Governor Pataki, Attorney General Spitzer, the Assembly, and the Senate scrambled to make sense of the relevant statutes.

There was agreement that the Legislature could impose various sanctions against Mr. Hevesi, including imposing a fine or removing him from office. What wasn’t clear was who was in charge of enforcing a penalty or initiating removal proceedings.

Ethics commission officials said the agency had fulfilled its responsibility by notifying the Legislature that Mr. Hevesi had broken the law. They acknowledged that they did not know what the legislative branch was expected to do next.

Mr. Silver said in a statement that he was “carefully reviewing the report and relevant state statute. Mr. Bruno said he was looking to the governor for a recommendation on how to deal with the commission’s report. A spokesman for Mr. Pataki said the governor’s office was trying to determine an “appropriate course of action,” and was hesitant to take action until the district attorney’s office of Albany County completed its criminal investigation of Mr. Hevesi.

Meanwhile, Mr. Spitzer, the Democratic candidate for governor, said he had instructed his office to begin an inquiry to determine how much Mr. Hevesi owes the state. Noting that he has endorsed Mr. Hevesi’s re-election bid, Mr. Spitzer said he would be recusing himself from the law department’s investigation.

When Mr. Hevesi was New York City comptroller he hired Nicholas Acquafredda in 1995 to transport supplies and take fleet vehicles for maintenance, the report said. He was first directed to drive Mrs. Hevesi to medical appointments as early as 1997. In 2001, Mr. Hevesi reimbursed the city $6,439 after the office found out the New York Post was investigating Mrs. Hevesi’s usage of a taxpayer-funded chauffeur.

The commission’s report faulted Mr. Hevesi for excluding crucial details from his initial request in 2003 for permission to use an employee to provide transportation and security for his wife. The comptroller failed to note that he had reimbursed the city when Mr. Hevesi was working for the city, and he also didn’t mention that another driver, David Burke, was already assigned by the office to drive Mrs. Hevesi, the report said.

The commission did not learn of the second driver until the comptroller’s counsel informed it about Mr. Burke’s duties in a letter dated October 11, the day before Mr. Hevesi gave his testimony.

Responding to Mr. Hevesi’s request for permission, the commission in May 2003 told Mr. Hevesi in an advisory opinion that he did not have to reimburse the state for transportation provided to his wife by an employee in cases where there is a legitimate security concern or the driving is related to the official business of the comptroller.

Taking the commission’s advice, Mr. Hevesi requested that the executive services unit of the State Police, which protects the governor and his family, conduct a risk assessment for Mrs. Hevesi. The report suggests that a top deputy to Mr. Hevesi may have tried to influence the assessment, which was handled by a security officer in the unit named Ihor Stadnyk.

Before he completed his assessment, Mr. Stadnyk received a note from deputy comptroller Robert Brackman asking for a letter from the state police that affirmed the existence of a security threat and “articulated need for the kind of ‘soft’ protection Mrs. Hevesi warrants.”

Mr. Stadnyk in his testimony said the comptroller’s office was “looking for a letter that validated their security concerns for Mrs. Hevesi, which is at odds with normal procedure to do a threat assessment.”

The state police later determined that Mrs. Hevesi had not received any threats and kept a low public profile and therefore faced a “low threat risk.” A senior member of the comptroller’s security team, Tony Johnson, told the commission that Mrs. Hevesi faced dangers arising from Mr. Hevesi’s policies toward Sudan, South Africa, Israel, and Northern Ireland. Mr. Johnson said his office conducted its own assessment, a claim doubted by the commission, which said there are “no records” that support Mr. Johnson’s testimony.

Mr. Hevesi testified to the commission that his wife’s frailty constituted a security risk, a position that the commission rejected.

“There is no question that Mrs. Hevesi suffers from debilitating illnesses, and that those closest to her have genuine concerns for her welfare. But State employees may not use public resources to care for their loved ones,” the report said. “Surely, the State’s Comptroller may not do so.”

Beginning in 2003, Mr. Acquafredda gradually reassumed his assignment as chauffeur for Mrs. Hevesi, a development that was worrisome to at least one longtime employee, according to the report. After learning that Mr. Acquafredda was once again driving Mrs. Hevesi, the executive assistant comptroller, Diana Hoffman, cautioned Mr. Hevesi: “Do we want to do this again?”

According to the report, “She testified that the comptroller heard her concern but did not answer; there was no further discussion, and she carried out her request.”