Davis v. Rosenblatt

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before KANE; HARVEY; KANE
• Citation: Davis v. Rosenblatt, 559 N.Y.S.2d 401, 159 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
• Decision Date: 19 July 1990
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 3,No. 4,No. 2,1,2,3,4
• Parties: Reuben K. DAVIS et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, et al., Respondents-Appellants. (Action) H. Buswell ROBERTS et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York, et al., Appellants-Respondents. (Action) John MARIANO et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, et al., Appellants-Respondents. (Action) Thomas W. HIGGINS, Jr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, et al., Appellants-Respondents. (Action)

Page 401

559 N.Y.S.2d 401

159 A.D.2d 163

Reuben K. DAVIS et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Administrative Judge and Chief

Administrator of the Courts of the State of New

York, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

(Action No. 1.)

H. Buswell ROBERTS et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Chief Administrative Judge of the

Courts of the State of New York, et al.,

Appellants-Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

John MARIANO et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Administrative Judge and Chief

Administrator of the Courts of the State of New

York, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

(Action No. 3.)

Thomas W. HIGGINS, Jr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Albert ROSENBLATT, as Administrative Judge and Chief

Administrator of the Courts of the State of New

York, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

(Action No. 4.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

July 19, 1990.

Robert J. Pearl, Rochester, for appellants-respondents in Action No. 1; and respondents-appellants in Action Nos. 3 and 4.

William A. Price, Buffalo, for respondents-appellants in Action No. 2.

Michael Colodner (John Eiseman, of counsel), Office of Court Admin., New York City, for Albert Rosenblatt, respondent-appellant in Action No. 1 and appellant-respondent in Action Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Frank K. Walsh, of counsel), Albany, for Edward V. Regan et al., respondents-appellants in Action No. 1, appellants-respondents in Action Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Before KANE, J.P., and CASEY, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.

HARVEY, Justice.

In each of these four actions, plaintiffs, who are current or former full-time City Court Judges of the Cities of Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Niagara Falls, seek a judgment declaring that the disparity between their wages ($74,500 per year) and the wages paid to the City Court Judges of the City of Yonkers ($81,000 per year) and the City of Utica ($78,000 per year) pursuant to Judiciary Law § 221-i violates their rights to equal protection of the laws under the State and Federal Constitutions (see, N.Y. Const., art. I, § 11; U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1). As relief, the various plaintiffs have requested an award of back pay, related ancillary relief and counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants in these actions are the State, its Comptroller and the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of New York. Defendants served answers in which they generally denied the allegations contained in plaintiffs' complaints and asserted various affirmative defenses, including the failure to state a cause of action and the Statute of Limitations. Subsequently, all plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their complaints. In three of the actions, the Comptroller and the State cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

In action No. 1, Supreme Court, Monroe County, partially granted the Rochester plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that the salary disparity between Rochester City Court Judges and Utica City Court Judges violates the Rochester plaintiffs' equal protection rights. However, Supreme Court also held that the statute perpetuating the disparity between the salary of Rochester City Court Judges and Yonkers City Court Judges was not unconstitutional. The court ordered that the Rochester plaintiffs be awarded back pay and pension base adjustments, with interest, from October 1, 1978. The issue of counsel fees was not addressed. The Rochester plaintiffs and defendants now cross-appeal.

In action No. 2, Supreme Court, Erie County, partially granted the Buffalo plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring, inter alia, that the salary disparity between Buffalo City Court Judges and both Utica and Yonkers City Court Judges is unconstitutional. Accordingly, Supreme Court ordered that the Buffalo plaintiffs be awarded judgment for the differential between their salaries and those paid to Yonkers City Court Judges and for attendant benefit adjustments from October 1, 1978. The court denied the Buffalo plaintiffs' request for predecision and postdecision interest and for counsel fees, and denied the cross motions for summary judgment of the Comptroller and the State in all respects. The Buffalo plaintiffs and defendants now cross-appeal.

In action No. 3, Supreme Court, Niagara County, partially granted the Niagara Falls plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring that the salary disparity between Niagara Falls City Court Judges and Utica City Court Judges is unconstitutional. However, Supreme Court concluded, as did Supreme Court in action No. 1, that the record establishes that a rational basis exists for the salary disparity between Niagara Falls and Yonkers City Court Judges. In addition, Supreme Court found the Statute of Limitations defense asserted by defendants to be without merit. Accordingly, Supreme Court ordered that the Niagara Falls plaintiffs be awarded back pay and pension base/benefit adjustments, with interest, from October 1, 1978. On the issue of counsel fees, Supreme Court ordered that the Niagara Falls plaintiffs are entitled to an award of such fees, unless defendants are able to establish special circumstances militating against such an award. The Niagara Falls plaintiffs and defendants now cross-appeal.

Finally, in action No. 4, Supreme Court, Onondaga County, partially granted the Syracuse plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring that the salary disparity between Syracuse City Court Judges and their counterparts in Utica and Yonkers is without a rational basis and therefore unconstitutional. In so doing, Supreme Court rejected the Statute of Limitations defense raised by the Comptroller and the State and denied the Syracuse plaintiffs' request for counsel fees. Accordingly, Supreme Court ordered that the Syracuse plaintiffs be awarded back pay and pension base/benefit adjustments, with interest, from October 1, 1978. The Syracuse plaintiffs and defendants now cross-appeal.

Initially, we must reject the contention of the State and its Comptroller (hereinafter collectively referred to as the State) that certain of the plaintiffs in all four actions are precluded from maintaining their actions because of the Statute of Limitations. ¹ The State concedes that, with respect to the current City Court Judges, their claims for declaratory relief invalidating the applicable statute cannot be barred by the Statute of Limitations because a cause of action for a continuing harm continuously accrues (see, Amerada Hess Corp. v. Acampora, 109 A.D.2d 719, 722, 486 N.Y.S.2d 38; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac. p 213.04). As for those judges who had left the City Court bench for various reasons because of retirement or career changes, however, the State advances several different time limitations by which to measure their claims. Nonetheless, it is clear that the only appropriate limitation period is the six-year residuary Statute of Limitations provided by CPLR 213(1). Applying this period to the claims of those plaintiffs who are former City Court Judges, only the claim of Syracuse plaintiff Mary M. Fahey, as executrix of the estate of James Fahey who left the Syracuse City Court bench in October 1981, is time barred. This is because the Syracuse action (action No. 4) was not commenced until February 1988, approximately four months after the limitations period had run.

With the Statute of Limitations issue disposed of, we now turn to the merits of the remaining plaintiffs' claim that no rational basis exists for the disparity between plaintiffs' salaries as City Court Judges and those of City Court Judges in the Cities of Yonkers and Utica. ² At the outset we note that the history behind the well-litigated issue of judicial pay disparity since the enactment of the Unified Court Budget Act of 1976 (L.1976, ch. 966) is well documented. Along with reorganizing and unifying the court system, the takeover was implemented in order to "enable the allocation of moneys and manpower * * * unimpeded by artificial local boundaries and the diverse competing needs of local governmental agencies" (L.1976, ch. 966, § 1). As a result, the majority of the State's judiciary employees were placed on its payroll (see, Judiciary Law § 39[6]. This restructuring included City Court Judges. The State assumed full responsibility for establishing the compensation of all City Court Judges and for budgeting and appropriating sufficient funds therefor. Prior to that time, salaries for City Court Judges throughout the State were determined by local legislative bodies and were frequently the result of historic decisions reflecting local philosophies, finances and concerns. The disparate salary structures that resulted were thereafter reflected in and perpetuated after the takeover by the salaries set forth in Judiciary Law former § 221-g and still exist to some extent in the present Judiciary Law § 221-i. This remains so despite the repeated requests and recommendations from, among others, successive Chief Administrative Judges (see, Kendall v. Evans, 126 A.D.2d 703, 704, 510 N.Y.S.2d 910, aff'd 72 N.Y.2d 963, 534 N.Y.S.2d 662, 531 N.E.2d 294) and the Office of Court Administration that the disparities in pay between all judges with similar duties, including all full-time City Court Judges, be eliminated. To date, these requests have not been heeded. In response to this situation, numerous lawsuits involving various courts and members of the judiciary have ensued challenging the applicable statutes on equal protection grounds (see, e.g., Cass v. State of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 460, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 448 N.E.2d 786; Weissman v. Evans, 56 N.Y.2d 458, 452 N.Y.S.2d 864, 438 N.E.2d 397; Weissman v. Bellacosa, 129 A.D.2d 189, 517 N.Y.S.2d 734; Kendall v. Evans, 126 A.D.2d 703, 510 N.Y.S.2d 910, supra; Mackston v. State of New York, 126 A.D.2d 710, 510 N.Y.S.2d 912; Edelstein v. Rosenblatt, N.Y.L.J., May 8, 1990,...