Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks, Left, and Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, Right. Photos: Hans Pennink and David Handschuh

New York state court officials were slapped with a lawsuit Thursday from several appellate judges who are being forced off the bench due to an approximate $300 million cut to the judiciary budget.

The litigation is the most serious pushback to the court system's decision to cut 46 older judges to help deal with a 10% cut to the judiciary budget. The court system says the cut is coming from Gov. Andrew Cuomo amid budget woes spurred by the economic havoc of the coronavirus pandemic.

The plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit include Judges Ellen Gesmer, David Friedman, Sheri S. Roman and John M. Leventhal. They launched the lawsuit Thursday in a state court in Suffolk County.

"Respondents denied certification to these judges with total disregard for the impact of their actions on the administration of justice for the citizens of this state," the lawsuit argues.

The wholesale terminations, the lawsuit says, will lead to a reduction in diversity within New York's judiciary, delays in decision making and a decrease "in resources for the provision of justice to the state's most disadvantaged citizens."

"All of these consequences will be inflicted on a court system teetering on the edge of total dysfunction," the lawsuit reads.

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks are listed as respondents in the litigation, which accuses them of engaging in "blatant age discrimination."

"They decided to terminate the most experienced judges in the state and have already signaled their intention to replace those judges with younger and less experienced judges, some of whom have never been elected by the voters of this state," the litigation argues.

The litigation says the officials "violated their statutory and constitutional duties" and committed acts of age discrimination that violate the law.

Weeks ago, Marks announced that the court system would not be allowing many judges who were 70 years of age or older from continuing to serve on the bench.

The court system's administrative board "routinely" gave the green light to judges who were 70 years old or older, in part if they had the physical and mental capacity to do the job, according to the complaint.

The appellate judges argue the court system did not make individualized decisions, but instead based their decision only on the budget troubles.

With a 3-2 split, the administrative board was initially against the plan to terminate the older judges, according to the lawsuit.

Gerald Whalen, presiding justice of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and DiFiore both backed the plan, it said.

"The swing vote in favor of the plan to deny certification ultimately was Justice Scheinkman of the Second Department, who had previously stated to justices for the Second Department that he would support certification given the necessity of their continued service," according to the lawsuit.

State court officials have consistently defended the decision to terminate the older judges and say they are taking other measures, like a strict hiring freeze, to address the budget hole.

DiFiore has argued the terminations, among other measures, will allow the court system to avoid or greatly curb layoffs among the nonjudicial workforce.

"While we will be responding accordingly in Court, it is the unfortunate that the idea of shared sacrifice is too much to be considered even in this seminal moment that we all are living through," said Lucian Chalfen, a state court spokesman, in a statement.

The court system says the terminations will save the court system upward of $55 million over the next two years.

But the lawsuit asserts that terminating the judges could never save that amount of money. It argues DiFiore and Marks have also not provided any justification for the savings figure.

Meanwhile, criticism of the cost-cutting measure has come from several fronts. Two judges' associations called it a hasty move made without careful consideration. A council at the New York City Bar Association has opposed the decision, too. And two-dozen lawmakers say the terminations will unfairly harm one of the poorest counties in the state and delay justice.

"Instead of taking into account where the need for justice is greatest—OCA arbitrarily terminated Supreme Court justices in such a manner that jurisdictions with the largest need will likely bear the largest brunt of its cuts," the lawmakers wrote in a letter.

The politicians also argued it would make sense to hold off until there's more information about if there will be federal aid money or revenue at the state level to fix the budget difficulties.

More recently, Judicial Friends Association voiced their opposition to the terminations in a letter this week, urging the court system to reconsider its decision.

"It appears that the Court System settled for an easy way out of making a difficult budgetary decision by simply terminating the Judges with pending certifications and re-certifications like low-hanging fruit, rather than seeking alternative methods of budget reduction," according to the letter.

READ MORE: