Panel Hears Broad Support for Continued Parity Between State, Federal Judicial Salaries at Public Hearing
Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks testified before a statewide panel tasked with setting those salaries that the court system is prepared to front the cost of those raises.
November 04, 2019 at 05:16 PM
7 minute read
State judges in New York could receive an annual pay hike over the next four years under a proposal Monday from the state Office of Court Administration, which recommended that those salaries continue to be tied to wages earned by their counterparts in the federal court system.
Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks testified before a statewide panel tasked with setting those salaries that the court system is prepared to front the cost of those raises.
"We will fully absorb the cost of those [cost-of-living adjustments] in our operating budget," Marks said.
The New York State Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation held the first of two public hearings Monday on whether judges paid by the state should receive a salary increase in the coming years, and how much that raise should be.
The panel is scheduled to publish a report in December that's set to determine how much judges in New York will be paid until their salaries are evaluated again in 2023.
That report will carry the force of law, meaning the state Legislature won't have to pass additional legislation to enact its recommendations next year. Lawmakers have the option to invalidate the report, but that hasn't happened in the past.
There was broad agreement among those who testified Monday, including Marks, that the salaries of state judges in New York should continue to be tied to what those in the federal judiciary earn.
That's the current model, as was established the last time salaries of state-paid judges were evaluated in 2015. The Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation decided, at the time, to enforce parity between the pay of state and federal trial court judges.
Under that model, the salary paid to state Supreme Court justices, who preside over cases in the lowest tier of the state court system, is required to match that of U.S. District Court judges, who share a comparable position in the federal judiciary.
Because of that agreement on parity, state Supreme Court justices and U.S. District Court judges both currently earn $210,900.
That's up from last year when their annual salary reached $208,000. Federal judges can be given raises based on changes to the cost of living. When those judges are given a pay hike, the state's current model requires the same increase for state Supreme Court justices.
That would continue if the state decides to maintain the same model for the next four years, as Marks proposed Monday.
"It's critically important that parity continue between the federal judges and the New York state judges," Marks said. "There's really no legitimate or rational reason why it should not, and the cost of doing so is extremely modest, is negligible, and is a cost that the court system will fully absorb in its budget."
If that model remains, and if the rate of pay were to increase over the next four years for state Supreme Court justices, the salaries of other judges presiding over state courts would also go up under the proposal.
That's because the salaries of other judicial positions within the state court system are tied to what's earned by state Supreme Court justices. Judicial salaries in state courts currently range from $189,900 to $240,800 each year.
The salary earned by state Supreme Court justices is the baseline for what all other judges earn within the state court system. And because those salaries are tied to the federal judiciary, so are the wages earned by all state judges in New York.
New York City Civil and Criminal Court judges, for example, earn 93% of whatever is paid to state Supreme Court justices in New York. City Court judges outside New York City earn 90% of the salary paid to a state Supreme Court justice.
Comparable formulas are used to determine the salary paid to judges in the higher tiers of New York's courts as well.
An associate justice on the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, is currently paid $233,400. An associate justice of the Appellate Division, the state's intermediate court, earns $222,200. Those salaries have grown in proportion to the pay of state Supreme Court justices.
State judges would only be paid more in future years, under the OCA's plan, if federal judges are also scheduled to receive an increase.
"So, in other words if the federal judges get a cost-of-living adjustment over the next four years, that New York would get the same," Marks said.
Based on raises received over the last four years by federal judges, Marks said OCA has estimated an annual cost of the raises at about $3 million. He said that was less than one-eighth of 1% of the state court system's operating budget, which he expected them to fully absorb.
Support for continuing the model was also heard by others who testified at the hearing Monday, including New York City Bar Association President Roger Juan Maldonado, a partner at Smith, Gambrell & Russell.
"We must make sure to keep moving forward, to maintain that parity and continue to support adequate compensation for our colleagues on the bench because they are the backbone of a fair, effective and efficient judicial system," Maldonado said.
Queens County Supreme Court Justice Janice Taylor, the current president of the Supreme Court Justices Association of the City of New York, testified that Chief Judge Janet DiFiore's Excellence Initiative, launched to reduce court backlog, has also boosted performance among the state's judiciary.
With state courts operating more efficiently than in recent years, Taylor testified that parity with the federal judiciary should be preserved based on that workload.
"Our performance merits this level of compensation," Taylor said. "All of the performance indicators, including the standards and goals for the judiciary, evidence an extremely high level of performance by our judges in case management and disposition."
The proposal from OCA doesn't apply to town and village justices, whose salaries are not determined by the Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation. Their pay is locally funded and set within their jurisdiction.
The commission's binding report is scheduled to be released by the end of the year.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250