4 No. 38
Honorable Francis A. Affronti, et al.,
Appellants-Respondents,
v.
Matthew T. Crosson, as Chief Administrator of Courts of State of New
York &c., et al.,
Respondents-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 25
March 22, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Robert J. Pearl, for appellants-respondents.
Frank K. Walsh, for respondents-appellants Regan & State New York.
John J. Sullivan, for respondent-appellant Chief Administrative Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs, current and former Monroe County Family Court Judges,
challenge the constitutionality of Judiciary Law §§ 221-d and 221-e
on the ground that the statutorily enacted pay disparities between the
Family Court Judges of Monroe County and Judges serving in the Family
Courts of Sullivan, Putnam and Suffolk Counties violate their rights
to equal protection under the 14^th Amendment of the Federal
Constitution and article I, § 11 of the State Constitution. Because a
rational basis exists for the salary disparities, we hold that the
challenged provisions do not violate equal protection.
In April 1992, plaintiffs commenced this action seeking declaratory,
injunctive and monetary relief against defendants Matthew T. Crosson,
then Chief Administrator of the Courts of New York, Edward Regan, then
Comptroller of the State of New York, and the State of New York.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated their equal protection
rights under the State and Federal Constitutions because, under
Judiciary Law § 221-e, the statutory salaries of Sullivan and
Suffolk County Family Court Judges were higher than plaintiffs'
salaries and, under Judiciary Law § 221-d, the salaries of Putnam
County Court Judges, who serve in a multi-bench capacity, including as
Family Court Judges (see, Family Court Act § 131(b)), were also
higher.
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Plaintiffs, current and former Monroe County Family Court Judges, challenge the
Because a rational basis exists for the salary disparities, we hold that the challenged
In April 1992, plaintiffs commenced this action seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated their equal protection rights under the State and
At trial, plaintiffs proffered evidence seeking to demonstrate a similarity -- in the
Defendants countered with expert testimony and statistical data showing a cost of living
Supreme Court declared that the salary disparities between plaintiffs and the Judges sitting
Upon defendants' appeal, the Appellate Division reversed as to the Putnam and Suffolk County
The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the costs of living in
With respect to the pay disparity between plaintiffs and the Sullivan County Family Court
Defendants submitted to the Appellate Division 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census data from the
As in Henry v Milonas (supra, at 269), the Putnam County Court Judges' multiple roles give
Our conclusion renders academic those portions of the parties' appeal and cross appeals
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to
|
