3 No. 75
Culver K. Barr, et al.,
Respondents-Appellants,
v.
Matthew T. Crosson, as Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State
of New York, &c., et al.,
Appellants-Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 78
June 20, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Julie M. Sheridan, for State appellants-respondents.
John J. Sullivan, for appellant-respondent Chief Administrative Judge.
Robert F. Julian, for respondents-appellants. SMITH, J: The primary
issue on appeal is whether this latest challenged judicial salary
disparity survives equal protection constitutional scrutiny. We hold
that it does.
In March 1991, plaintiffs, current and former Monroe County Court
Judges, commenced this action in Supreme Court, Monroe County, seeking
a declaratory judgment and ancillary injunctive and monetary relief
against defendants the State of New York, Matthew T. Crosson, then
Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, and Edward
Regan, then Comptroller of the State of New York. Plaintiffs alleged
that defendants violated their right to equal protection of the laws
under the State and Federal Constitutions by causing them, pursuant to
Judiciary Law § 221-d, to be paid less ($86,000) than their
counterpart Judges in five other counties: Albany ($90,000), Nassau
($95,000), Putnam ($90,000), Suffolk ($95,000) and Westchester
($94,000). Plaintiffs claimed that their jurisdiction, practices,
procedures and work load are identical to their counterpart Judges in
Albany County. Plaintiffs further alleged that the cost of living
between Monroe and Albany Counties is substantially similar and, thus,
no rational basis exists to support the salary disparity.
Following joinder of issue, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
Defendant Chief Administrator did not oppose the motion and took the
standard position of that Office that, as a matter of policy only, the
salaries of all County Court Judges should be equal. The Chief
Administrative Judge took "no position on whether the Constitution
compels that these salaries be equal." Defendants Comptroller and the
State opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint.
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In March 1991, plaintiffs, current and former Monroe County Court Judges, commenced this
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated their right to equal protection of the laws under
Plaintiffs claimed that their jurisdiction, practices, procedures and work load are identical
Plaintiffs further alleged that the cost of living between Monroe and Albany Counties is
Defendant Chief Administrator did not oppose the motion and took the standard position of
Defendants Comptroller and the State opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment
On December 30, 1994, Supreme Court dismissed the claims of three plaintiffs as time-barred,
ntiffs remaining on the Monroe County bench salaries equal to their counterpart Judges in Albany
On May 11, 1995, on the basis of this Court's February 1995 decision in Burke v Crosson (, 85
Supreme Court reasoned that a true unity of judicial interest could not logically exist
Thereafter, plaintiffs moved in Supreme Court for prejudgment interest on their back pay
We also granted plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to appeal from the same order of the Third
Specifically, defendants point out that the Appellate Division's decision in this case is
Recently, in D'Amico v Crosson, we rejected the "totality of economic indicators" test
|
