Dunlea v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 21 November 1985
• Citation: 496 N.Y.S.2d 406,66 N.Y.2d 265
• Parties: , 487 N.E.2d 263 Mark A. DUNLEA et al., Appellants, v. Warren ANDERSON, as Temporary President of the New York State Senate, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 406

496 N.Y.S.2d 406

66 N.Y.2d 265, 487 N.E.2d 263

Mark A. DUNLEA et al., Appellants, v. Warren ANDERSON, as Temporary President of the New York

State Senate, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 21, 1985.

Mark A. Dunlea, Lynbrook, appellant pro se.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Wayne L. Benjamin, Robert Hermann and Peter H. Schiff, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ALEXANDER, Judge.

The only question involved on this appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Laws of 1984 (ch. 986), passed by the State Senate and Assembly on December 6, 1984, which, inter alia, increased the salaries of the members of the Legislature for the 1985-1986 term. The appeal is taken pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)(2) directly from a judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, declaring that sections 18 and 19 of chapter 986 are not violative of N.Y. Constitution, article III, § 6. The latter section provides that "[n]either the salary of any [legislator] nor any other allowance * * * may be increased or diminished during, and with respect to, the term for which he shall have been elected".

On November 6, 1984, the voters of this State elected the members of the 1985-1986 Legislature. On December 6, 1984, the members of the 1983-1984 Legislature approved Senate Bill 10162, which was signed into law the following day by Governor Cuomo as the Laws of 1984 (ch. 986). This enactment amended the Judiciary Law, the Legislative Law, the New York City Civil Court Act, the County Law, the Executive Law and the State Finance Law to raise the salaries of members of the Legislature, judges and justices of the unified court system, New York City housing judges, and certain District Attorneys and State officers. The effective date of sections 18 and 19 of the new statute, which deal with legislative salaries and allowances, was January 1, 1985, the commencement date of the 1985-1986 legislative term.

Plaintiffs, the Committee Against Legislative Pay Increases, by its treasurer Mark A. Dunlea, and Edward Robinson, a New York State resident and taxpayer, commenced this action seeking a declaration that sections 18 and 19 of chapter 986 are unconstitutional; an injunction against further distribution of funds under those sections; and restitution of funds already paid out thereunder. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that because 144 of those members of the 1983-1984 Legislature who voted in favor of increasing salaries for the 1985-1986 term had already been elected to that term, the enactment of sections 18 and 19 violated the constitutional proscription against raising a legislator's salary "during, and with respect to, the term for which he shall have been elected".

Special Term granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, declaring that the legislators whose terms of office were to expire on December 31, 1984 were entitled to approve an increase in legislative salaries and allowances to take effect upon the commencement of the next legislative term and that sections 18 and 19 were validly enacted. We now affirm.

"Our deliberations must begin with an awareness of the respect due the legislati branch, which finds articulation in the precept that 'as a matter of substantive law every legislati enactment is deemed to be constitutional until its challengers have satisfied the courts to the contrary' (Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41, 54, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1, 340 N.E.2d 444)" ( New York Public Interest Research Group [NYPIRG] v. Steingut, 40 N.Y.2d 250, 257, 386 N.Y.S.2d 646, 353 N.E.2d 558). In NYPIRG, we invalidated the then-prevalent practice by the Legislature of increasing legislator's allowances on a year-by-year basis through annual budgetary appropriations. Because these allowances were appropriated during each term and were effective during the same term, it was clear that they violated the constitutional proscription against increasing a member's allowance "during, and with respect to, the term for which he shall have been elected". We also held, however, that "the Constitution lays no constraint on the authority of the Legislature by enactment of general law to make provision prospectively for allowances to be received by the officers and members of the two houses during a succeeding legislative term or terms" (New York Public Interest Research Group v. Steingut, 40 N.Y.2d, at p. 261, 386 N.Y.S.2d 646, 353 N.E.2d 558, supra [emphasis supplied] ). The provisions of sections 18 and 19 raising salaries and allowances for members of the 1985-1986 Legislature are clearly prospective and thus do not violate N.Y. Constitution, article III, § 6. That section does not prohibit one Legislature, subsequent to the elective designation of its successor body, from increasing the salaries of the next term's members. Neither its language nor the intention of its drafters compel a contrary interpretation.

Until N.Y. Constitution, article III, § 6 became effective in its present form on January 1, 1948, legislative salaries were fixed, primarily on a per diem basis, by the Constitution, and could be changed only by constitutional amendment. With the amendment of section 6, a legislator now "receive[s] for his services a like annual salary, to be fixed by law" (N.Y. Const., art. III, § 6). The purpose of empowering the...