Giuffreda v. Stout

• Decision Date: 18 September 1961
• Citation: 220 N.Y.S.2d 215
• Parties: Leon E. GIUFFREDA et al. v. August STOUT, Jr., et al.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 215

220 N.Y.S.2d 215

Leon E. GIUFFREDA et al. v. August STOUT, Jr., et al.

Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

Sept. 18, 1961.

Ashare & Ashare, Patchogue, for petitioners Giuffreda, Larsen & rogers.

Joseph La Gattuta, Centereach, for petitioners LaGattuta & Salvatore.

George E. Lechtrecker, Patchogue, for respondents.

HENRY M. ZALESKI, Justice.

This is an Article 78 proceeding brought by the Justices of the Peace of the Town of Brookhaven to declare invalid a resolution of the Town Board and to direct the Town to pay to them the salaries in effect prior to the adoption of the resolution under attack.

Petitioners, Giuffreda, Larsen and Rogers, were elected Justices of the Peace at a general election held in November, 1957 for four-year terms commencing January 1, 1958. Petitioners, LaGattuta and Salvatore were elected at the general election of November, 1959 for four-year terms commencing January 1, 1960. In November, 1959, the then Town Board adopted a resolution fixing the salaries of the Justices of the Peace at $10,000 per year commencing January 1, 1960 . On January 3, 1961, the Board adopted a resolution reducing the salaries to $8,000 per year.

Alleging that the Town Board had no power to reduce their salaries, the petitioners instituted this proceeding to nullify the 1961 resolution and to recover their back pay.

The petitioners rely on Article 6, Sections 17 and 19 of the Constitution of the State of New York. Article 6 generally provides for the judicial system in this State. Section 17 created the office of the Justice of the Peace. It reads in part: 'The electors of the several towns shall, at their annual town meetings, or at such other time and in such manner as the legislature may direct, elect justices of the peace, whose term of office shall be four years. * * * Their number classification and duties shall be regulated by law. * * *'.

Section 19 provides: 'All judges, justices and surrogates shall receive for their services such compensation as is now or may hereafter be established by law, provided only that such compensation shall not be diminished during their respective terms of office * * *.'

It has been held that notwithstanding the all-inclusive language of Section 19, the salaries of Municipal Court Judges (Haggerty v. City of New York, 267 N.Y. 252, 196 N.E. 45; Abrams v. La Guardia, 174 Misc. 421, 21 N.Y.S.2d 891, affirmed 262 App.Div. 724, 28 N.Y.S.2d 711, affirmed 287 N.Y. 717, 39 N.E.2d 933) and justices of the Court of Special Sessions (Gresser v. O'Brien, 146 Misc. 909, 263 N.Y.S. 68, affirmed 263 N.Y. 622, 189 N.E. 727) may be reduced. The rationale behind these decisions is that the courts therein considered are not constitutional courts, but are creatures of the legislature and, as such, are subject to its control.

Speaking of the Municipal Courts, the Court of Appeals said in Haggerty v. City of New York, supra, 267 N.Y. at page 256, 196 N.E. at page 47: 'Nowhere do we find in the Constitution any provision for its creation, continuance, or even existence. the Legislature having created it, may abolish it at any time or transfer its jurisdiction to any other tribunal. * * * Surely if the Legislature has power to abolish the court and is given specifically plenary power to regulate it, as the whole includes the part, so this power must permit of the decrease or increase in salary.' In the Gresser case (supra), in answer to the argument that Section 19 of Art. 6 of the Constitution includes justices of the Courts of Special Sessions, the Court observed 146 Misc. at pages 920-921, 263 N.Y.S. at page 80: 'If it is urged that section 19 intended zealously to safeguard the salaries of special sessions justices as well as those of higher courts, how can such a position be maintained in the face of the constitutional provision for absolute legislative control over inferior local courts, of which special sessions is one, even to the extent of permitting the Legislature to discontinue the latter? * * * It would seem, therefore, that the Constitution, in protecting 'all judges, justices and surrogates,' intended to take under its sheltering wing only judicial officers functioning in constitutional courts, of which the Court of Special Sessions is not one.'

Having these principles in mind, we must inquire into the nature, creation and control of the office of justice of the peace. He 'may be defined as a constitutional judge, elected by the people for a fixed term, protected from removal except by a judicial...