O'Neill v. Pfau

• Decision Date: 12 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 115,115
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04231,993 N.Y.S.2d 666,23 N.Y.3d 993,18 N.E.3d 377
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas P. O'NEILL et al., Appellants–Respondents, v. Ann PFAU, as Chief Administrative Judge of the Office of Court Administration, State of New York—Unified Court System, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

23 N.Y.3d 993

18 N.E.3d 377

993 N.Y.S.2d 666

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04231

In the Matter of Thomas P. O'NEILL et al., Appellants–Respondents

v.Ann PFAU, as Chief Administrative Judge of the Office of Court Administration, State of New York—Unified Court System, Respondent–Appellant.

No. 115

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 12, 2014.

Law Offices of David Schlachter, Uniondale (David Schlachter of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

John W. McConnell, New York State Office of Court Administration, New York City (Lee Alan Adlerstein and Pedro Morales of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM .

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioners challenge certain administrative orders of the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York (CAJ) dated January 8, 2004 (AO/072/04) and December 22, 2004 (AO/534/04), and seek

to compel the CAJ to pay New York State Court Officers employed in Suffolk County a salary increment reflecting a continuous service credit, in accordance with those orders. The January 2004 order abolished the position of Court Officer (a salary grade of JG–16) and replaced it with the new position of New York State (N.Y.S.) Court Officer (a salary grade of JG–17). The CAJ treated the new title as a reclassification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 37(5)

, rather than pursuant to section 37(3)(c), or a reallocation pursuant to section 37(11). As a result, petitioners did not receive the continuous service credit they would have received if the new title had been treated as a reallocation. The December 2004 order increased the salary grade of NYS Court Officer from JG–17 to JG–18, retroactive to January 8, 2004.

Petitioners allege that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 37

, both orders should have been treated as reallocations, not reclassifications. They claim that the January 2004 order denied them continuous service credit towards longevity increments for time worked in their former title, and that the December 2004 order adjusting their salary grade to JG–18, which was retroactive to January 8, 2004 rather than prospective, deprived them of salary increases to which they were entitled.

Petitioners' challenge to the January 2004 order is time-barred. On April 7, 2004, employees whose title changed from Court Officer to NYS Court Officer received their first paychecks reflecting the increase to JG–17, without continuous service credit. The order impacted petitioners on that date, and thus they were aggrieved on that date (see generally Matter of Edmead v. McGuire, 67 N.Y.2d 714, 716, 499 N.Y.S.2d 934, 490 N.E.2d 853 [1986]

; see also

Matter of Maurer v. State Emergency Mgt. Off., 196 Misc.2d 750, 763 N.Y.S.2d 737 [Sup.Ct. Albany County 2003], aff'd 13 A.D.3d 751, 786 N.Y.S.2d 620 [3d Dept.2004] [receipt of paycheck without overtime pay starts running of the statute of limitations for an article 78 proceeding to challenge failure to pay overtime] ). Petitioners did not commence this proceeding until July 2005, more than one year after receiving their paychecks. Therefore, their claim regarding the January 2004 order is untimely (see CPLR 217

).

Contrary to petitioners...