You are here: / / 2009 Statute Setting Aside Money for Increased Judicial Compensation Did...

2009 Statute Setting Aside Money for Increased Judicial Compensation Did Not Constitute a Pay Raise for Judges

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined that a 2009 law which set aside $51 million for increases in judicial pay did not increase judicial compensation.  The plaintiffs, judges and justices, argued that the legislation effected a pay raise because it did not reference the need for any future legislation:

To accept the plaintiffs’ argument would require us to conclude that the Legislature intentionally deleted what would have been explicit amendments to the salary schedule set forth in article 7-B of the Judiciary Law so that judicial compensation could be adjusted by utilizing the doctrine of repeal by implication, in conjunction with the implementation of the deleted salary schedules… . Pines v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 00335, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Cause of Her Fall Without Resorting to Speculation
COURT’S LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATION AWARD SUCCINCTLY STATED.
Remainderman Was Entitled to the Tax and Insurance Payments Made on Behalf of the Holder of the Life Estate/Life Estate Should Have Been Extinguished as a Matter of Equity
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DEPRIVED SUPREME COURT OF JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING, THE PRIOR ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Analytical Criteria for Stipulation of Settlement Which Is Incorporated But... Separate Dispositional Hearing to Determine Best Interests of the Child Appropriate...