Case Name: Willard W. Cass, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. State of New York et al., Respondents. (And Two Other Actions.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1983-03-30
Citations: 58 N.Y.2d 460
Docket Number: 
Parties: Willard W. Cass, Jr., et al., Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents. (And Two Other Actions.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 460–466

Head Matter:
Willard W. Cass, Jr., et al., Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents. (And Two Other Actions.)
Argued February 14, 1983;
decided March 30, 1983
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Murray A. Gordon and Richard Imbrogno for appellants.
I. The act, in perpetuating the disparities in judicial salaries which exist here, violates the New York State and Federal Constitution equal protection clauses. In this respect the instant appeals are governed by Weissman. (Weissman v Evans, 56 NY2d 458; Lindsley v Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 US 61; Dandridge v Williams, 397 US 471.) II. The disparity in judicial compensation here complained of violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the judiciary. (Matter of McCoy v Mayor of City of N. Y., 73 Misc 2d 508, 41 AD2d 929; People ex rel. Burby v Howland, 155 NY 270; United States v Will, 449 US 200; Benvenga v La Guardia, 182 Misc 507, 268 App Div 566, 294 NY 526; Evans v Gore, 253 US 245; O’Donoghue v United States, 289 US 516; Atkins v United States, 556 F2d 1028, 434 US 1009.) III. The State of New York is a necessary and proper party to these actions and the dismissal of the complaint as against the State was error. (Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695; Fehlhaber Corp. v State of New York, 69 AD2d 362; Saso v State of New York, 20 Misc 2d 826; St. Paul Fire & Mar. Co. v State of New York, 99 Misc 2d 140; Hallock v State of New York, 39 AD2d 172, 32 NY2d 599; Matter of Martin v Ronan, 47 NY2d 486.)
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (William J. Kogan and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for State of New York and another, respondents.
I. The salary disparity issue is inappropriate for judicial resolution; in any event, there is no violation of equal protection because there is a rational basis for the unequal pay. (Matter of Tolub v Evans, 58 NY2d 1; Weissman v Evans, 56 NY2d 458; Board of Educ. v Nyquist, 57 NY2d 27; Matter of Evans v Newman, 71 AD2d 240, 49 NY2d 904; Farrington v Pinckney, 1 NY2d 74; Matter of Rosenthal v Hartnett, 36 NY2d 269; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v County of Nassau, 18 NY2d 30; Cox v Katz, 22 NY2d 903; New York State Assn. of Trial Lawyers v Rockefeller, 267 F Supp 148.) II. Neither the language of New York State Constitution (art VI, § 25) nor the principle of an independent judiciary is violated by the Unified Court Budget Act. (County of Broome v Bates, 197 Misc 88, 302 NY 587.) III. The court below properly dismissed the complaints against the State of New York for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Schaffer v Evans, 57 NY2d 992.)
Paul A. Feigenbaum for Herbert B. Evans, respondent.
The salary disparities among Judges in the respective Family, County and Surrogate’s Courts do not deprive plaintiffs of their rights to equal protection of the law.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
In these three declaratory judgment actions the plaintiffs are County Court Judges, Family Court Judges, and Surrogates who claim that the Unified Court Budget Act (L 1976, ch 966; L 1979, ch 55; L 1980, ch 881) denies them equal protection insofar as it provides higher salaries for Judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in certain counties in the New York City metropolitan area. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that they are entitled to retroactive salary increments to compensate them for the discrepancies.
The Supreme Court consolidated the three actions and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, against all defendants except the State Comptroller and dismissed the action against him.
The Appellate Division reversed and granted judgment in favor of all the defendants, except the State declaring the statute constitutional. The complaint against the State was dismissed because the Appellate Division found "no persuasive authority to demonstrate that it is a proper defendant in these actions". (88 AD2d 305, 308.)
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reinstating the complaints against the State and otherwise affirmed.
Claims against the State primarily seeking money damages should, of course, be brought in the Court of Claims (Schaffer v Evans, 57 NY2d 992). It is settled, however, that a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court is an appropriate vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute (Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695). In addition, the State is a proper party to such an action because of its obvious interest in and right to be heard on matters concerning the constitutionality of its statutes (CPLR 1012; cf. Weissman v Evans, 56 NY2d 458). Thus the motion to dismiss the complaint against the State for lack of jurisdiction should have been denied.
In all other respects the Appellate Division correctly held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment for the reasons stated in its opinion. We would simply note that our recent opinion in Matter of Tolub v Evans (58 NY2d 1) provides additional authority for the Appellate Division's conclusion that the plaintiffs have not been denied equal protection.
In the Tolub case we stated (at p 8) that a State budgetary act "will not be struck as violative of equal protection merely because it creates differences in geographic areas As long as the State had a rational basis for making such a distinction, it will pass constitutional muster under an equal protection challenge". In the case now before us the relevant classes encompass Judges of three separate courts established and maintained throughout the State. As the Appellate Division indicates, there are State-wide disparities in population, caseload, and cost of living, which provide a rational basis for the Legislature to adopt price differentials for those serving in different areas of the State. The case is clearly distinguishable from Weissman v Evans (supra) involving a limited class composed entirely of Judges of the District Court which exists only in two adjoining counties on Long Island, where differences of this nature were not evident and therefore could not serve to provide a rational justification for a salary differential between the Judges sitting in Nassau County and those sitting in Suffolk County.
In the Tolub case we also observed that when a rational basis exists for the classification enacted by the Legislature, "equal protection does not require that all classifications be made with mathematical precision" (Matter of Tolub v Evans, supra, at p 8). Thus in this case the fact that the general statutory scheme, when applied on a Statewide basis, may produce some inequities for certain Judges within a particular class does not render the statute unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs, by reinstating the complaints against the State only for the technical purpose of declaring in favor of the State as well as the other defendants; and otherwise the order should be affirmed.