Court Rejects Claims by Trio of Judges

Introduction to the Case

A Manhattan judge has dealt an early blow to an effort by a group of fellow jurists to strike down New York’s judicial retirement mandate.
The plaintiffs — Appellate Division, Second Department Justice Robert Miller, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Richard Montelione and Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Orlando Marrazzo Jr. — allege in a lawsuit filed last month against the state and the Office of Court Administration that judicial age limits violate an equal rights amendment to the New York state constitution that voters approved last year with 62% of the vote.

Background on Judicial Retirement Laws

Under the current retirement laws, Miller and Marrazzo, who both turned 76 years old during the current calendar year, must step down after Dec. 31. Meanwhile, judges who turn 70 years old — as Montelione did this year — must regularly prove their competency to do the work if they intend to stay on the bench.

Ruling on the Preliminary Injunction

In his ruling to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the state court system from enforcing the retirement mandates, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank said that, for New York’s new equal rights amendment to apply to their case, the judges would need to show that the age limits “violate a civil right of theirs.”
The judges “have not shown, nor is the Court aware of, a civil right consisting of the ability to remain a judge,” Frank wrote.

Reaction to the Ruling

The plaintiffs’ legal team, which includes retired Appellate Division justices David Saxe and John Leventhal, said they are appealing Frank’s ruling to the Appellate Division, First Department.
David Scharff, a senior partner at Morrison Cohen, said in a statement that Frank “made a fundamental error in its constitutional interpretation of the problem presented” and “improperly narrowed the scope of the civil right being challenged by the State and OCA, age-related employment discrimination and at the same time ignored the legislative predicates in New York that have outlawed such age-related employment discrimination.”

Historical Context and Public Policy Concerns

In their petition, Miller, Montelione and Marrazzo note that New York first set its judicial retirement age at 70 years old in 1869, when a male’s average life expectancy was 41 years old. It is now almost 79, according to their complaint.
While Frank ruled to dismiss the judges’ lawsuit, he clarified in his ruling that he is not dismissive of the idea that mandatory retirement ages for the judiciary should be reconsidered.
Observing that “there are serious public policy concerns with the current judicial mandatory retirement age scheme,” Frank noted that changing the law would require an amendment to the state constitution.
“The Court may be able to add its voice to those urging the New York legislature to reconsider the issue of mandatory judicial retirement ages, but that remains all it has the power to do,” Frank said.

Previous Efforts to Change the Judicial Age Limit

The most recent effort to change the judicial age limit by constitutional amendment proved unsuccessful, even with the endorsement of then-Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman. In 2013, New York voters rejected a ballot measure to raise the retirement age to 80 by 58% of the vote.

Conclusion

The ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank is a significant setback for the trio of judges seeking to challenge New York’s judicial retirement mandate. However, the issue of mandatory retirement ages for judges is likely to continue to be debated, given the changing demographics and the need to ensure that the judiciary remains effective and efficient.

FAQs

• Q: What is the current judicial retirement age in New York?
  A: The current retirement laws require judges to step down after Dec. 31 if they turn 76 years old during the current calendar year, while those who turn 70 years old must regularly prove their competency to do the work if they intend to stay on the bench.
• Q: What is the basis of the lawsuit filed by the trio of judges?
  A: The judges allege that judicial age limits violate an equal rights amendment to the New York state constitution that voters approved last year with 62% of the vote.
• Q: What was the outcome of the most recent effort to change the judicial age limit by constitutional amendment?
  A: In 2013, New York voters rejected a ballot measure to raise the retirement age to 80 by 58% of the vote.