18-3221

New York State Court Officers Association v. Hite

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER

R U L INGS B Y SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED O N OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2 007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF A PPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A S UMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A P A RTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PA R T Y C I T I NG A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term o f the United States C ourt of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held a t th e Thurgood M arshall United States Courthouse, 4 0 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27 th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges. *

———————————————————————— NEW YORK STATE COURT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CURRENT AND RETIRED MEMBERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants ,

v. No. 18-3221-cv REBECCA A. CORSO, IN HER OFFICIAL

* Judge Peter W. Hall, originally a m e m ber of the panel in this c a se, died on March 11, 2021. The two rem aining m em

bers of the panel, who are i n agreem ent, authorized the issuance of this Summ ary Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. IOP E(b); Uni te d Sta tes v. Desimone , 140 F.3d 457, 458-59 (2d Cir. 1998).CAPACITY AS ACTING COMMISSIONER

OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, CAROLINE W. AHL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, LANI V. JONES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ROBERT F. MUJICA, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF THE BUDGET, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, JANET DIFIORE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF JUDGE OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,

Defendants-Appellees. * *

———————————————————————— FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: STEPHEN G. DENIGRIS, The DeNigris Law Firm, PLLC, Albany, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: FREDERICK A. BRODIE, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief ), f orLetitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, Albany, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of

* * The Clerk of Court is directed to am end the caption as set forth above. To the extent that form er state officials were s u e d in their official capacity, current officeholders are substituted as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 2New York (Mae A. D’Agostino, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant the New York State Court Officers Association (“NYSCOA”) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mae A. D’Agostino, J. ) granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees, various State officials (collectively, “the State”) on all claims in this contractual and constitutional dispute growing out of
the State’s 2011 decision to alter its rates of contribution to retired former employees’ health insurance plans. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history of the case, and the specifications of issues on appeal, which we set forth only as necessary to explain our decision. We reserved decision in this case pending disposition of Donohue v. Hochul , No. 18-3193-cv, which was designated both in the district court and in this Court as the lead case of eleven related cases alleging breach of contract and constitutional contract-impairment claims involving the alteration of State health insurance contribution rates for retirees. Following this Court’s final disposition
of Donohue, we directed the parties in this and the other related cases “to file

3letter-briefs stating their views on how their case should be resolved in light of

Donohue v. Cuomo (‘ Donohue II’), 980 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2020), Donohue v. Cuomo (‘ D onohue III’), 38 N.Y.3d 1 (2022), and Donohue v. Hochul , [32 F.4th 200 (2d Cir. 2022)] (‘ Donohue IV

’),” addressing in particular “the extent to which anything in the collective bargaining agreements at issue in the case, or any other circumstances specific to the case, distinguish the case from Donohue .” ECF No. 106 at 2. The State filed such a supplemental letter-brief, and NYSCOA filed a letter informing this Court that it does not oppose the State’s filing. We construe that non-opposition as a concession that this case is materially indistinguishable
from Donohue and therefore that we should affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the same grounds as we did in Donohue IV

. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

4