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
TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED WHILE PETITIONER’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION WAS PENDING AND NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IT, WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN LAW AND STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), AND WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TOWN’S POLICE AND ZONING POWERS (SECOND DEPT).
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO, AREA WAS COVERED WITH GRASS AND APPEARED TO BE LEVEL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR BUSINESS RECORDS SUBMITTED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION PROPERLY GRANTED, ELEMENTS OF PRE-AMENDMENT PROOF OF A CLAIM OF RIGHT APPLIED TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
HOME RENOVATION CONTRACTOR, WHO PERFORMED WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO QUANTUM MERUIT RELIEF, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES TO COMPLETE OR REPAIR CONTRACTOR’S WORK.
Rear-End Collision: No Rational Process By Which Jury Could Have Found Plaintiff Negligent

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...