Sullivan v. Paterson

• Decision Date: 20 January 2011
• Citation: 80 A.D.3d 1051,915 N.Y.S.2d 403
• Parties: John F. SULLIVAN, as President of the Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association, et al., Appellants, v. David PATERSON, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

915 N.Y.S.2d 403 80 A.D.3d 1051 John F. SULLIVAN, as President of the Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association, et al., Appellants, v. David PATERSON, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York. Jan. 20, 2011.

Robert Saperstein, Hauppauge, for appellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for David Paterson and another, respondents.

Wayne Schneider, New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Albany, for New York State Teachers' Retirement System, respondent.

Richard E. Casagrande, Latham (Frederick K. Reich of counsel), for New York State United Teachers, respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., SPAIN, KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

SPAIN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.), entered July 23, 2010 in Albany County, which, among other things, granted defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring chapter 45 of the Laws of 2010 to be constitutional.

In this action, plaintiffs challenge legislation enacted in April2010 which permits certain members of the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter ERS) and defendant New York State Teachers' Retirement System (hereinafter TRS) to retire early without penalty ( see L 2010, ch 45). Specifically, the statute permits individuals who have attained the age of 55 and completed at least 25 years of creditable service with a participating employer ¹ to retire without suffering the reduction in benefits that would otherwise result by operation of Retirement and Social Security Law § 440 et seq. and § 600 et seq. ( see L. 2010, ch. 45, § 5). In addition, and the crux of this constitutional challenge, is the requirement that the employee "hold[ ] a position represented by the recognized collective bargaining units affiliated with the New York state united teachers employee organization" (hereinafter NYSUT) (L. 2010, ch. 45, § 3[e] ).

Plaintiff John F. Sullivan (hereinafter plaintiff) is the president of the Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association (hereinafter ESSAA), an organization that represents bargaining units comprised of professional school employees, including primarily, but not exclusively, administrative and supervisory employees. Plaintiffs ² commenced this action seeking a declaration that chapter 45 of the Laws of 2010 is unconstitutional under both the Federal and State Constitutionson equal protection and freedom of association grounds. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and defendants cross-moved, in three separate motions, for summary judgment declaring chapter 45 of the Laws of 2010 to be constitutional and dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted defendants' cross motions, prompting this appeal by plaintiffs. We now affirm.

As an initial matter, we reject the argument that ESSAA lacks organizational standing because ESSAA represents local bargaining units and not individuals and, thus, it is argued, none of ESSAA's actual members have standing. In order for anorganization to establish that it has standing to sue, it " 'must demonstrate that at least one of its members would have standing to sue individually, that the interests it asserts are germane to its purpose and that the resolution of the claim does not require the participation of its individual members' " ( Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clifton Park, 50 A.D.3d 1296, 1297, 856 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 716, 862 N.Y.S.2d 337, 892 N.E.2d 403 [2008], quoting Matter of Saratoga Lake Protection & Improvement Dist. v. Department of Pub. Works of City of Saratoga Springs, 46 A.D.3d 979, 982, 846 N.Y.S.2d 786 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 706, 857 N.Y.S.2d 38, 886 N.E.2d 803 [2008] ). By demonstrating that its member organizations represent individual administrators who would have retired during the open period if they would suffer no penalty, ESSAA essentially demonstrated that its members who represent those individuals would have organizational standing to challenge this legislation. Given that ESSAA represents-if one step removed-individuals suffering an injury in fact, that the interests asserted by ESSAA in this action are germane to its stated mission of representing public school supervisors and administrators, and that pursuit of this action does not require the direct participation of one of ESSAA's members, we hold that ESSAA has organizational standing to sue ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clifton Park, 50 A.D.3d at 1297, 856 N.Y.S.2d 687).

Turning to the merits, and applying the "exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality" that this statute enjoys, we must reject plaintiff's equal protection challenge ( Lighthouse Shores v. Town of Islip, 41 N.Y.2d 7, 11, 390 N.Y.S.2d 827, 359 N.E.2d 337 [1976] ). Where, as here, a legislative distinction is not based on a suspect classification and does not impair a fundamental right, the challenger has the tremendous burden of demonstrating that no facts can reasonably be conceived to show the existence of a rational basis in support of some legitimate state interest in drawing the distinction ( see Miriam Osborn Mem. Home Assn. v. Chassin, 100 N.Y.2d 544, 547, 762 N.Y.S.2d 867, 793 N.E.2d 404 [2003]; Riley v. County of Monroe, 43 N.Y.2d 144, 149, 400 N.Y.S.2d 801, 371 N.E.2d 520 [1977] ). "The rational basis standard of review is a paradigm of judicial restraint" ( Affronti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d 713, 719, 723 N.Y.S.2d 757, 746 N.E.2d 1049 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], cert. denied 534 U.S. 826, 122 S.Ct. 66, 151 L.Ed.2d 32 [2001]; see Port Jefferson Health Care Facility v. Wing, 94 N.Y.2d 284, 290, 704 N.Y.S.2d 897, 726 N.E.2d 449 [1999], cert. denied 530 U.S. 1276, 120 S.Ct. 2744, 147 L.Ed.2d 1008 [2000]; Federal Communications Commn. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 [1993] ) and requires the challenger to negate " 'every conceivable basis which might support [the state's interest] whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record ' "( Affronti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d at 719, 723 N.Y.S.2d 757, 746 N.E.2d 1049, quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-321, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 [1993] ). The state, on the other hand, need not produce any evidence to demonstrate the existence of any rational reason for the statutoryclassification ( see Port Jefferson Health Care Facility v. Wing, 94 N.Y.2d at 291, 704 N.Y.S.2d 897, 726 N.E.2d 449).

Here, defendants have proffered, as a rational basis for drawing a distinction between NYSUT members and nonmembers, that the eligibility exclusion provides a legitimate means to target a group of individuals who, if encouraged to retire, will provide the most cost savings-namely, the classroom teachers and teachers assistants that make up the majority of individuals represented by NYSUT, as opposed to the supervisory and administrative personnel represented by ESSAA. The premise asserted-which plaintiff does not effectively rebut-is that replacing administrators and supervisors is not as advantageous from a cost-savings perspective as replacing older classroom teachers, because supervisors and administrators are usually replaced by someone closer in seniority than a classroom teacher's replacement. The Court of Appeals previously has held that a similarly drawn distinction between teachers and administrators on a financial basis is rational, even where some of the administrators also taught. In Schneider v. Sobol, 76 N.Y.2d 309, 559 N.Y.S.2d 221, 558 N.E.2d 23 [1990], the Court upheld a regulation that targeted teachers and excluded individuals who were compensated under an administrative or supervisory salary schedule from receiving legislatively created salary supplements where it was uncontroverted that "the average salaries of school administrators as a group are consistently higher than comparable salaries of teachers as a group" ( id. at 314-315, 559 N.Y.S.2d 221, 558...