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
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL, FOR THE WITNESSES’ SAFETY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED, SUA SPONTE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT UNDER A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF THE CONTRACT AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.
AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.
Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted

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...