Maron v. Silver

• Decision Date: 23 February 2010
• Citation: 14 N.Y.3d 230,925 N.E.2d 899,899 N.Y.S.2d 97
• Parties: In the Matter of Edward A. MARON et al., Appellants, v. Sheldon SILVER, as Speaker of the State Assembly, et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent. Susan Larabee et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Governor of the State of New York, Respondent, and New York State Senate et al., Appellants-Respondents. Chief Judge of the State of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Governor of the State of New York et al., Respondents-Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

899 N.Y.S.2d 97
14 N.Y.3d 230
925 N.E.2d 899

In the Matter of Edward A. MARON et al., Appellants,
v.
Sheldon SILVER, as Speaker of the State Assembly, et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.
Susan Larabee et al., Respondents-Appellants,
v.
Governor of the State of New York, Respondent,
and
New York State Senate et al., Appellants-Respondents.
Chief Judge of the State of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents,
v.
Governor of the State of New York et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 23, 2010.

899 N.Y.S.2d 100

Steven Cohn, P.C., Carle Place (Steven Cohn, Richard Lieb and Paula Schwartz Frome of counsel), for appellants in the first above-entitled proceeding and action.

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York City (Richard H. Dolan, David J. Katz and Erik S. Groothuis of counsel), for respondents in the first above-entitled proceeding and action.

899 N.Y.S.2d 101

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York City (Richard H. Dolan, David J. Katz and Erik S. Groothuis of counsel), for respondent and appellants-respondents in the second above-entitled action.

Cohen & Gressler LLP, New York City (Thomas E. Bezanson, Alexandra Wald and Matthew V. Povolny of counsel), and Chadbourne & Parke LLP (George Bundy Smith and J. Carson Pulley of counsel), for respondents-appellants in the second above-entitled action.

Suhana S. Han, New York City, Adam R. Brebner and Matthew A. Parham for New York County Lawyers' Association, amicus curiae in the second above-entitled action.

Briscoe R. Smith, Larchmont, and Martin S. Kaufman for Atlantic Legal Foundation and another, amici curiae in the second above-entitled action.

Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York City (Zachary W. Carter of counsel), and Eric B. Epstein for Zachary W. Carter, amicus curiae in the second above-entitled action.

Wollmuth Maker & Deutsch LLP, New York City (Vincent T. Chang of counsel), for Asian American Bar Association of New York and others, amici curiae in the second above-entitled action.

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City (Bernard W. Nussbaum, George T. Conway III, Graham W. Meli and Kevin S. Schwartz of counsel), and Michael Colodner for appellants-respondents in the third above-entitled action.

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York City (Richard H. Dolan, David J. Katz and Erik S. Groothuis of counsel), for respondents-appellants in the third above-entitled action.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York City (Joseph L. Forstadt, Ernst H. Rosenberger, Burton N. Lipshie, Jerry H. Goldfeder, Sandra J. Rampersaud and Linda M. Melendres of counsel), for Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York and others, amici curiae in the first above-entitled proceeding and action and the second and third above-entitled actions.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York City (Caitlin J. Halligan, Gregory Silbert and David Yolkut of counsel), for Fund for Modern Courts, amicus curiae in the third above-entitled action.

14 N.Y.3d 244, 925 N.E.2d 903

OPINION OF THE COURT

PIGOTT, J.

The constitutional arguments raised in these judicial compensation appeals are premised upon, among other things, alleged violations of the New York State Constitution's Compensation Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Because the Separation of Powers Doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another coequal branch, we conclude that the independence of the Judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

I. Factual Background

The compensation of justices and judges of the Unified Court System, with certain exceptions not applicable here, is governed by article 7-B of the Judiciary Law ( see Judiciary Law §§ 221-221-i). Article VI, § 25(a) of the New York Constitution, also known as the "Compensation Clause," directs that the compensation of justices and judges "shall be established by law and shall not be diminished during the term of office for which he or she was elected or appointed."

The last time the Legislature adjusted judicial compensation was in 1998, through

925 N.E.2d 904, 899 N.Y.S.2d 102

the amendment of Judiciary Law article 7-B ( see L. 1998, ch. 630, § 1 [eff. Jan. 1, 1999] ). That adjustment increased the annual salaries of this State's Judiciary to make them commensurate with the salaries paid their federal counterparts.¹ Now, however, New York State ranks nearly last of the 50 states in its level of judicial compensation, adjusting for the cost of living. It is estimated that, over the last 11 years, the real value of judicial salaries has declined by approximately 25% to 33%.

At the time the roughly 1,300 judges and justices who comprise the so-called "Article VI judges" (i.e. judges covered by article VI of the New York State Constitution) received the pay raise that was enacted in 1998, they presided over 3.5 million cases. Ten years later, in 2008, the judges presided over a staggering 4.5 million cases, 38% of which were criminal (approximately 1.71 million cases), 42% civil (approximately 1.89

14 N.Y.3d 245

million cases), 17% Family Court (approximately 765,000 cases) and 3% Surrogates' Court (approximately 135,000 cases) ( see New York State Unified Court System 1998 and 2008 Annual Reports).

In 2006, the Judiciary submitted to Governor Pataki, as part of its proposed annual budget, a request for $69.5 million to fund salary adjustments for the approximately 1,300 article VI judges, retroactive to April 1, 2005. The intention was to restore pay parity with federal judicial salaries. Although made part of the state budget ( see L. 2006, ch. 51, § 2), the Legislature failed to authorize disbursement of the appropriation, because the Legislature and the Governor could not agree on a pay increase for the legislators themselves.

The following year, Governor Spitzer included in his executive budget more than $111 million for judicial pay raises, retroactive to April 1, 2005, which, if implemented, would have placed salaries of State Supreme Court justices at an amount roughly on a par with federal judicial compensation. The Legislature removed that provision from the budget two months later.

In April 2007, the Senate passed a bill (2007 N.Y. Senate Bill S5313) increasing judicial compensation, this time retroactive to January 1, 2007, and calling for the creation of a commission to review future salary increases for both judges and legislators. Governor Spitzer refused to support this legislation, however, unless the Legislature enacted campaign finance and ethics reform measures. Two months later, the Governor expressed support for a "judges only" pay bill.

Shortly thereafter, the Senate passed another bill (2007 N.Y. Senate Bill S6550) providing for an increase in judicial salaries, this time without any corresponding increase for legislators. It also called for the establishment of a commission to examine future increases in judicial salaries taking into account the needs of the Judiciary and the State's ability to pay. The Assembly refused to act on that bill because it did not provide for an increase in legislative pay.

The following year, Governor Paterson and the Legislature approved a budget for 2008-2009 that included $48 million for judicial salary increases. Like the 2006-2007 appropriation, this was a so-called "dry appropriation" requiring further legislation before the salaries could be paid—legislation that was never enacted.

All parties to this litigation agree that article VI justices and judges have earned and deserve a salary increase. That is

925 N.E.2d 905, 899 N.Y.S.2d 103

what

14 N.Y.3d 246

makes this litigation unique. Although the parties have been in accord regarding the need to adjust judicial compensation, the failure of the Legislature and the Executive to come to an agreement on legislation effecting a pay increase has led to the continuing inertia underlying this dispute.

II. Procedural History

Maron v. Silver et al.

The Maron petitioners—current and former State Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judges—commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action against respondents Sheldon Silver, as Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph Bruno, then Temporary President of the Senate, Eliot Spitzer, then Governor of New York, Thomas DiNapoli in his capacity as State Comptroller, the Assembly and Senate and the Office of Court Administration (OCA).² The article 78 proceeding seeks mandamus relief compelling the Comptroller to disburse all retroactive sums and pay the budgeted raises allocated in the 2006-2007 state budget for judicial salary reform. The petition also asserts violations of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, equal protection and the State Compensation Clause.

Supreme Court, Albany County, partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, leaving intact the separation of powers claim. The court further held that Silver, Bruno and Spitzer were immune from suit because setting judicial salaries is a legislative act, and concluded that to the extent the petition alleged a constitutional violation against the Assembly and Senate, those allegations constituted claims against the State.³

In a 4-1 decision, the Appellate Division dismissed the petition, holding, among other things, that the Maron petitioners' failure "to allege a discriminatory attack on the judicial branch that has impaired or imminently threatened the Judiciary's independence and ability to function" was fatal to their separation of powers claim ( Matter of Maron v. Silver, 58 A.D.3d 102, 123, 871 N.Y.S.2d 404 [3d Dept.2008] ).

The Maron petitioners appealed to this Court as of right on the constitutional questions presented. This Court retained

14 N.Y.3d 247

jurisdiction over the appeal and denied leave to appeal as unnecessary ( see Matter of Maron v. Silver, 12 N.Y.3d 909, 884 N.Y.S.2d 686, 912 N.E.2d...