Henry v. Milonas

• Decision Date: 24 February 1998
• Parties: , 692 N.E.2d 554, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 1712 Frederic T. HENRY, Jr. and James R. Harvey, Respondents, v. E. Leo MILONAS, as Chief Administrator of Courts of State of New York etc., et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 523

669 N.Y.S.2d 523

91 N.Y.2d 264, 692 N.E.2d 554, 1998

N.Y. Slip Op. 1712

Frederic T. HENRY, Jr. and James R. Harvey, Respondents, v. E. Leo MILONAS, as Chief Administrator of Courts of State of

New York etc., et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 24, 1998.

Michael Colodner, New York City, John Eiseman and John J. Sullivan, for E. Leo Milonas, appellant.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh, Barbara G. Billet and Peter H. Schiff, of counsel), for H. Carl McCall and another, appellants.

Michael T. DiPrima, Rochester, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, the elected Surrogate and elected County Court Judge of Ontario County, challenge the constitutionality of Judiciary Law §§ 221-d, 221-e, and 221-f on the ground that the statutorily enacted pay disparity between the County, Family and Surrogate's Court Judges of Ontario and Monroe Counties violates equal protection. Because plaintiffs have failed to establish that no rational basis exists for the salary disparity, we hold that the provisions of the Judiciary Law are constitutional and therefore reverse.

Plaintiff Frederic T. Henry, Jr., is the duly elected Surrogate of Ontario County. By annual administrative order of the Chief Administrative Judge, Henry also serves as acting County and Family Court Judge (see N.Y. Const., art. VI, § 26). Plaintiff James R. Harvey is the duly elected County Court Judge of Ontario County. He also serves as an acting Family Court Judge by operation of law (see Family Court Act § 131[b] ), and as a Surrogate's Court Judge by administrative appointment.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, the Comptroller and the State of New York seeking a declaration that the difference between their salaries and the salaries paid to Judges of the County, Family and Surrogate's Court in contiguous Monroe County violates their right to equal protection of the laws. After joinder of issue, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The Chief Administrative Judge took "no position on whether the Constitution compels that these salaries be equal." The State defendants opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment.

Supreme Court dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to show that no conceivable, rational reason existed for the disparity. Plaintiffs appealed and the Appellate Division reversed and remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. The Appellate Division concluded that the salary differential rested entirely upon geography, not the distinct duties of Judges at county-level courts, noting that the three types of Monroe County Judges received the same salary despite the difference in judicial function and jurisdiction. Finding the differences in the costs of living between the two counties insignificant, the Court concluded that defendants failed to establish that a rational basis existed for the salary disparity between plaintiffs and the County, Family, and Surrogate's Court Judges in Monroe County. Defendants appeal from the final judgment of Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 5601(d).

For equal protection purposes, classifications that do not target a suspect class or infringe upon a fundamental right must be upheld if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate State interest (see Cass v. State of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 460, 463-464, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 448 N.E.2d 786; Matter of Tolub v. Evans, 58 N.Y.2d 1, 8, 457 N.Y.S.2d 751, 444 N.E.2d 1). While "a statutory scheme will not be struck as violative of equal protection merely because it creates differences in geographic areas" (Matter of Tolub v. Evans, supra ), the geographic or territorial distinction must be supported by a rational basis (Weissman v. Evans, 56 N.Y.2d 458, 465-466, 452 N.Y.S.2d 864, 438 N.E.2d 397). The party challenging the constitutionality of such a statute bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that no conceivable State interest rationally supports the distinction (Trump v. Chu, 65 N.Y.2d 20, 25, 28, 489 N.Y.S.2d 455, 478 N.E.2d 971; Maresca v. Cuomo, 64 N.Y.2d 242, 250-251, 485 N.Y.S.2d 724, 475 N.E.2d 95).

We have previously applied the rational basis test in two judicial salary disparity cases with differing results. In Weissman v. Evans, 56 N.Y.2d 458, 452 N.Y.S.2d 864, 438 N.E.2d 397, supra,, we held that there was no rational basis for a wage disparity between District Court Judges in contiguous Nassau and Suffolk Counties. We noted that the jurisdiction, practice and procedures of each of the District Courts, the only two in the State, and the functions, duties and responsibilities of their Judges were identical and their case loads were the same. As such, the two counties located in the Tenth Judicial District constitute a " 'true unity of * * * judicial interest * * * indistinguishable by separate geographic considerations' " (56 N.Y.2d at 463, 452 N.Y.S.2d 864, 438 N.E.2d 397).

In Cass v. State of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 460, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 448 N.E.2d 786, supra, however, we upheld provisions of the Unified Court Budget Act (L.1976, ch. 966; L.1979, ch. 55; L.1980, ch. 881) which created a disparity in compensation between Judges in the New York City metropolitan area and other Judges of coordinate jurisdiction across the State. There, the State-wide differences in population, case load and cost of living provided a rational basis for the Legislature to adopt salary differentials...