Killeen v. Crosson

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin; Before LAWTON; BOEHM; LAWTON
• Citation: Killeen v. Crosson, 638 N.Y.S.2d 531, 218 A.D.2d 217 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 02 February 1996
• Parties: Mary Ann KILLEEN, John J. Honan, Helen Mazur, as Executrix of Estate of Edward V. Mazur, Peter J. Notaro, Victor E. Manz, Frank A. Sedita, Jr., John F. O'Donnell, Anthony P. Lo Russo, Timothy J. Trost, James H. Dillon and Sharon S. Townsend, All Being Present or Past Judges of the Family Court of the County of Erie, and "John Judge" and "Jane Judge", Representing All Those Presently Unknown Individuals Who May During the Pendency of This Litigation Become Judges of the Family Court of the County of Erie, Appellants, v. Matthew T. CROSSON, as Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, and as Representative of the Administrative Board of the Courts of the State of New York, Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and the State of New York, Respondents.

Page 531

638 N.Y.S.2d 531

218 A.D.2d 217

Mary Ann KILLEEN, John J. Honan, Helen Mazur, as Executrix of Estate of Edward V. Mazur, Peter J. Notaro, Victor E Manz, Frank A. Sedita, Jr., John F. O'Donnell, Anthony P. Lo Russo, Timothy J. Trost, James H. Dillon and Sharon S Townsend, All Being Present or Past Judges of the Family Court of the County of Erie, and "John Judge" and "Jane Judge", Representing All Those Presently Unknown Individuals Who May During the Pendency of This Litigation Become Judges of the Family Court of the County of Erie, Appellants, v. Matthew T. CROSSON, as Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, and as Representative of the Administrative Board of the Courts of the State of New York, Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, and the State of New York, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Feb. 2, 1996.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, Judge, Dismiss Complaint.

Law Offices of William A. Price by William A. Price, Buffalo, for Appellants.

Michael Colodner by John Eiseman and John J. Sullivan, New York City, for Respondent Crosson.

Dennis C. Vacco, State Attorney General by Peter H. Schiff and Frank K. Walsh, Department of Law, Albany, for Respondents Regan and the State of New York.

Before LAWTON, J.P., and FALLON, CALLAHAN, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.

BOEHM, Justice.

We are called upon to consider one more in a long series of cases necessitated by the failure of the Legislature to deal with judicial salary disparities since the Unified Court Budget Act (Judiciary Law § 39[6] [L.1976, ch. 966] became effective on April 1, 1977 (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, rearg. denied 60 N.Y.2d 586, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 454 N.E.2d 127; Weissman v. Evans, 56 N.Y.2d 458, 452 N.Y.S.2d 864, 438 N.E.2d 397; Buckley v. Crosson, 202 A.D.2d 972, 609 N.Y.S.2d 493; Burke v. Crosson, 152 Misc.2d 158, 575 N.Y.S.2d 624, affd. 191 A.D.2d 997, 595 N.Y.S.2d 272, revd. 85 N.Y.2d 10, 623 N.Y.S.2d 524, 647 N.E.2d 736, on remand 213 A.D.2d 963, 623 N.Y.S.2d 969; Barth v. Crosson, 199 A.D.2d 1050, 607 N.Y.S.2d 200; Edelstein v. Crosson, 187 A.D.2d 694, 590 N.Y.S.2d 277, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 953, 597 N.Y.S.2d 939, 613 N.E.2d 971, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 654, 602 N.Y.S.2d 803, 622 N.E.2d 304; Deutsch v. Crosson, 171 A.D.2d 837, 567 N.Y.S.2d 773, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 857, 574 N.Y.S.2d 938, 580 N.E.2d 410; Davis v. Rosenblatt, 159 A.D.2d 163, 559 N.Y.S.2d 401, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 834, 566 N.Y.S.2d 588, 567 N.E.2d 982, lv.denied 79 N.Y.2d 757, 583 N.Y.S.2d 193, 592 N.E.2d 801). Here, Supreme Court granted the motion of defendant Edward V. Regan, Comptroller of the State of New York, and defendant State of New York (collectively, State) under CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse.

I

Plaintiffs, present and former judges of Family Court serving in Erie County, have brought this action for a judgment declaring that the disparity between their salaries and the salaries paid to Family Court Judges in 13 other counties of the State pursuant to Judiciary Law § 221-e violates their right to equal protection under the State and Federal constitutions (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 11). They also seek relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. In the fifth cause of action, plaintiff Frank A. Sedita, Jr., seeks the same relief for his tenure in Erie County Family Court and similar relief for his first period of service in Buffalo City Court. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claim with respect to the salary disparities in 10 counties; this appeal focuses only upon the salary disparities between Erie County and Sullivan, Putnam and Suffolk Counties. Defendant Matthew T. Crosson, then the Administrative Judge and Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, takes the position that, as a matter of policy, the salaries of all Family Court Judges in New York should be equal, but takes no position on whether such equality is constitutionally required.

II

Initially, we reject the contention of the State that stare decisis compels us to affirm the order appealed from with respect to the salary disparities in Putnam and Suffolk counties. The application of the doctrine of stare decisis is limited to a principle of law or a settled legal issue, rather than to prior factual or legal determinations (see, Moore v. City of Albany, 98 N.Y. 396, 410; People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 337-338, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011, rearg. denied sub nom. People v. Cawley, 76 N.Y.2d 890, 561 N.Y.S.2d 551, 562 N.E.2d 876). Significantly, the State does not attempt to invoke the doctrines of either collateral estoppel or res judicata. Those doctrines would be inapplicable in any event because none of the plaintiffs in the previous salary disparity cases included the Erie County Family Court Judges. Further, there has been no prior action resolving the precise issues raised in this case, specifically the cost-of-living differentials between Erie County and Sullivan, Putnam and Suffolk Counties. "[T]here must be an identity between the particular matter in the second action and that presented in the first * * * [a]nd it must be shown that this identical issue was necessarily decided in the first proceeding and is conclusive in the subsequent action" (D'Arata v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659, 666, 563 N.Y.S.2d 24, 564 N.E.2d 634).

Because there is no such identity of resolved issues here, plaintiffs were improperly deprived of the opportunity to make an appropriate record. "One of the fundamental principles of our system of justice is that every person is entitled a day in court notwithstanding that the same issue of fact may have been previously decided between strangers * * * Considerations of due process prohibit personally binding a party by the results of an action in which that party has never been afforded an opportunity to be heard [citation omitted]" (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485-486, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328).

III

The statistical charts and financial data included in the submissions of the parties are sufficient to raise substantial issues with respect to whether there is a rational basis for the salary disparities raised by plaintiffs. In response to the statistical evidence submitted in support of defendants' motion, plaintiffs furnished a wealth of countervailing statistical data, including comparative housing costs showing sales price comparisons, cost-of-living differentials, historical per capita income and average weekly earnings, comparative caseloads and population per Judge. In addition, the economic data submitted by defendants is assailed by plaintiffs as being without substance. Plaintiffs, in opposing defendants' motion, argued that six of defendants' seven statistical exhibits erroneously relate only to median housing values, whereas the appropriate measure is average housing values (see, Edelstein v. Crosson, supra, at 696, 590 N.Y.S.2d 277), and that defendants' seventh exhibit contains general data that does not adversely affect plaintiffs' position. Additionally, plaintiffs offered the testimony of two expert witnesses to analyze and explain the complex financial evidence that would be offered. Thus, plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to merit a hearing.

Further, in another case involving the judicial salary disparity of Family Court Judges in Sullivan County, we held that the evidence failed to support an award of summary judgment to either plaintiffs or defendants (Barth v. Crosson, supra, at 1051, 607 N.Y.S.2d 200). The Court of Appeals has expressly instructed that, with respect to judicial salary disparity issues, "[t]he correctness of the Supreme Court's determination depends, at least in part, on an analysis of the legal significance of the detailed facts set forth in the parties' submissions" (Burke v. Crosson, 85 N.Y.2d at 18-19, 623...