Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Increasing the compensation of judges

Increasing the compensation of judges
Matter of Maron v Silver, 2008 NY Slip Op 08573, Decided on November 13, 2008, Appellate Division, Third Department

The compensation of current and former justices of various courts of the Unified Court System have not been increased since January 1, 1999.

According to the decision, at present the State's judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation when adjusted for statewide cost of living. Naming Edward A. Maron as the lead plaintiff, these judges and former judges filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a ?writ of mandamus? to compel (1) the State Comptroller to disburse the appropriated funds, and (2) the Legislature and Governor to maintain judicial salaries apace with inflation.

Noting that the ?Justices of this Court? ? the Appellate Division, Third Department ? ?have an interest in the outcome of this case? nevertheless the Third Department declared that it was required to hear and dispose of the matter ?pursuant to the Rule of Necessity,? which provides that "wherever it becomes necessary for a judge to sit even where he [or she] has an interest where no provision is made for calling another in, or where no one else can take his [or her] place it is [the judge's] duty to hear and decide."

Maron argued that ?that the inaction of the Legislature in the face of the erosion of their salaries' real value by inflation violates that portion of the Compensation Clause providing that "[t]he compensation of a judge . . . shall not be diminished during [his or her] term of office" (NY Const, art VI, § 25 [a]).?

While the Appellate Division said that it ?wholeheartedly sympathize with [Maron] in this matter,? its review of the constitutional history and text of the Compensation Clause, as well as relevant case law, ?persuades us that this claim cannot succeed.?

After exploring the relevant legislative history of the issue, the court said that ?It is therefore readily apparent that the drafters of the current New York Compensation Clause were cognizant of the effect of inflation on judicial compensation over time, as well as the dangers to judicial independence that come into play when the Legislature is given the power to increase judicial compensation. Like the framers of the US Constitution, the people of the State of New York nonetheless ultimately chose to leave it to the Legislature's discretion to allow salary increases, ?thereby accepting a limited risk of external influence in order to accommodate the need to raise judges' salaries when times changed.?"

Noting that the failure to increase judicial salaries in the face of substantial inflation represents a policy choice that is ill-considered at best, the Appellate Division ruled that it is ?the NY Constitution itself that places the discretion to make such a choice with the Legislature? Accordingly, said the court, the impact of inflation, even when other state employees have received salary increases, cannot be deemed a sufficient basis for a claim under New York's Compensation Clause.

The court, after considering Maron?s arguments related to the Separation of Powers; Equal Protection; and the fact that the 2006-2007 State Budget "appropriated and authorized to be paid . . . [f]or expenses necessary to fund adjustments in the compensation of state-paid judges and justices of the unified court system pursuant to a chapter of the laws of 2006 [sic]," the court concluded neither these nor Maron?s remaining arguments were persuasive and granted the State?s motion to dismiss the petition ?in its entirety.?

The full text of this decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_08573.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 16, 2008 (boomark / email).