State Judges in New York Won't Receive Pay Raise Next Year, Panel Decides
And unless the state Legislature moves to change the decision, state judges in New York won't be eligible for a pay increase until 2024 at the earliest.
December 18, 2019 at 05:45 PM
6 minute read
State judges in New York won't be getting a pay raise next year after members of a panel created by the Legislature to evaluate such an increase declined to grant one Wednesday, citing the state's looming $6.1 billion budget deficit.
The decision marks the first time in nearly a decade that state judges in New York will be paid the same amount as the year before.
Panel members who voted against a raise cited the state's dire fiscal picture.
And unless the state Legislature moves to change that decision, state judges in New York won't be eligible for a pay increase until 2024 at the earliest. The panel's decision Wednesday is binding for the next four years unless reversed by state lawmakers.
Three individuals appointed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to the panel torpedoed a potential pay raise for the state's judges after a fourth member, an appointee of the State Assembly, agreed to side against an increase. That gave them a majority vote on the seven-member panel.
Robert Megna, a Cuomo appointee and a previous director of the state Division of Budget, led the opposition Wednesday to the pay increase. He said the state's finances were too strained to justify any additional spending for the state's judges.
"Given the difficulty of the fiscal situation we're in now, I just don't think I can move forward on the salary increase," Megna said.
He was joined on that position by another Cuomo appointee—former Revlon Inc. general counsel Mitra Hormozi—and Peter Madonia, an appointee of Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx.
An alternative proposal brought up at Wednesday's meeting, meant as a compromise, would have left judicial salaries at their current levels until 2021, after which those jurists would likely receive an annual pay increase for the following three years.
Former top Cuomo aide Jim Malatras, another Cuomo appointee, said he would have allowed the compromise, but the measure failed to gain support from a majority of the panel's members.
Megna shot down the proposal, arguing that the state's current fiscal crisis was expected, as of now, to persist beyond next year. Madonia, who was once chief of staff to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said he also wasn't comfortable with the idea.
"I would assume the out-years are even less clear," Madonia said. "Once you give, even if the Legislature wanted to down the road, it's hard to take away. They're not going to take away."
Proskauer Rose partner Michael Cardozo, the chairman of the panel, and Randall Eng, a retired presiding justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department—both appointees of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore—were in support of continuing the current pay model, but were outvoted.
"I'm disappointed. I think this is a wrong and irresponsible decision," Cardozo said.
Former State Sen. Seymour Lachman, a Democrat from Brooklyn who was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, D-Westchester, wasn't present at the meeting.
Judges in New York are currently paid based on what their counterparts at the federal level earn. Judges of the State Supreme Court—the lowest tier—are paid the same as federal U.S. district court judges.
That means that, under the current model, the pay of state judges in New York rises and falls with that of federal judges, whose salaries are determined through annual cost-of-living adjustments. Last year, that increase was nearly $3,000.
That number is then used to determine how much other judges in New York will earn. Judges on the state's appellate courts, for example, would receive a pay increase proportionate to the new salaries of their colleagues on the State Supreme Court.
That will no longer be the case after Wednesday's vote. The state's Commission on Legislative, Judicial, & Executive Compensation voted to delink the salaries of state-paid judges from those at the federal level. A standalone pay increase for those judges wasn't considered.
State Supreme Court justices in New York currently earn $210,900 annually. Over the last decade, their salary has gone up approximately $74,000 from $136,700 in 2011.
Another increase was likely under the model thrown out during Wednesday's meeting. The state Office of Court Administration had estimated next year's salary increase for the state's judges would cost about $2.7 million, less than 1% of the court system's budget.
That's also a small fraction of the state's current $6.1 billion budget deficit, which is mostly the result of Medicaid costs. It's unclear how the state plans to fill that gap.
Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks testified before the panel in November that the state Office of Court Administration wouldn't seek an additional $2.7 million from the state to cover the cost of the raises. That expense would, instead, be absorbed, Marks said.
Cardozo, at Wednesday's meeting, repeated that promise from Marks, but members of the panel in opposition to a pay increase were skeptical that it could actually be fulfilled.
"It can absorb what it thinks it can absorb today," Madonia said. "If the powers that be go back to the agencies and say they want a 10% cut, that statement about absorption maybe isn't true six months from now."
If the state's finances were in better shape, the vote likely would have been different. Megna said during Wednesday's meeting that he actually supported an increase for the state's judges—just not in the current fiscal climate.
Megna said they'll know more next month when Cuomo unveils his executive budget proposal, which is expected to include ideas to bridge the state's outstanding deficit. The state Division of Budget has said cuts are possible, but no final solution has been pitched.
Even if the state came up with a plan to close the deficit next month, that wouldn't help the panel in its decision. By law, it has to make its binding recommendations to the Legislature by the end of December.
A report detailing the commission's decision is expected to be made available to the public in the coming weeks.
READ MORE:
Cuomo Appointees to Judicial Pay Commission Oppose Salary Increases for State Judges
As Deadline Looms, NY Judicial Salary Commission Weighs Continuation of Link to Federal Pay
Salaries of NY State Supreme Court Justices Now on Par With Federal Court Judges
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
© 2025 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 AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Understanding the HEMS Standard in Trusts
- 2Mergers Are About People, Not Paperwork: Here’s Why
- 3Wachtell Partner Leaves to Chair Latham's Liability Management Practice
- 4Morris Nichols Partners to Be Involved With PLI Program
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Cultivating a Culture of Mutual Trust Is Essential,' Says Gina Piazza of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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